Culture, Humans Departure From Chimp/Bonobo

[Dov Henis]

From :

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=207

 

 

There were two major revolutionary evolution junctions along the course of "Darwinian evolution" from primordial genes to humans:

 

First was the Celling of the pre-celled archaic genes associations plus their (nucleolus like?) retinues, that became communes of interdependent genes, that freed genes/genomes from being at the mercy of all environmental circumstances and gave them some control over many of them. The following Darwinian evolution of poly-celled life has been a continuation and an extension of this revolutionary evolution.

 

The second, circa 6 million years ago, revolutionary life evolution has been initiated, in a similar vein, by our forefathers who adapted from life in semi- or tropical forest circumstances to life on plains. As changed living posture and circumstances led to modified perceptive/adaptive capabilities and eventually to language communication humans have gradually replaced adaptation to changed circumstances with self-evolving cultures/civilizations for control and modification of many of their circumstances. This is essentially similar to Life's earlier protective celling evolution, but with culture functioning for humans for change/control of circumstances in lieu of in-cell biological processes and of RNA and protein toolings that function for genomes for adapting their cell's physiology to changing circumstances.

 

Cultural aspects, ALL cultural aspects, function for individual humans and for human communities of all sizes including human phenotypes (distinct ethnic/national/cultural communities) in the same manner and for the same ends as biological systems function in and for cells. This is plainly in accord with the fractal nature of Earth Life.

 

Each and every one of our capabilities and functions is inherited from our predecessors including communication. However, our unique further complexing of communication is the added "intelligent" cultural level that renders human knowledge a tool for exploiting the capability of the novel revolutionary organism to extensively modify its living circumstances instead of physiologically adapting to changing circumstances.

 

Dov

[supersport]

Or, since there's no fossil evidence to prove evolution from primates, then that would give those of us who need actual evidence the impression that evolution never happened. S

 

by the way...do you like the computer-driven "out of Africa" model better or the multi-regional model better?

[Mercedes Benzene]

Do you have any proof to support your claims Dov?

Any website references? Anything?

 

All of your references that you do give are your own expositions.

Please, if you are going to make such blatently subjective threads, put them in strange claims.

[Dov Henis]

Dear MB,

 

 

(1) I post/propose suggestions, not claims (I do not know what 'claims' are in this respect).

 

(2) I quoted genetic data from Science to support my suggestion of the genetic effects of human culture on the human genome.

 

(3) I furnished my website link. There is no need for further reference if the suggestion is reasonable and/or correct. If it is not, a million website links would'nt make it right. If it is, more websites would'nt make it righter. I trust our forum mates to make up their own enlightened minds.

 

(4) All the references I gave are indeed my own expositions. Is this what makes the suggestions wrong? Or perchance are you holding back rational considerations or scientific data that justify-promote your blatent assertions and suggestion?

 

Yet sincerely respectfully,

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

(1) I post/propose suggestions, not claims (I do not know what 'claims' are in this respect).

In this context, a claim is pretty much a posted suggestion or proposition... not sure where the uncertainty lies, but I've added dictionary tags to the word "claim" for your reference.

 

(2) I quoted genetic data from Science to support my suggestion of the genetic effects of human culture on the human genome.

Can you please clarify where? It seems I've missed it as well. Thanks.

 

(3) I furnished my website link. There is no need for further reference if the suggestion is reasonable and/or correct. If it is not, a million website links would'nt make it right. If it is, more websites would'nt make it righter. I trust our forum mates to make up their own enlightened minds.

Appreciate your high regard of our members, but the basic point is that claims supported by multiple sources tend to be better than claims supported by single sources, especially when that single source is yourself.

 

(4) All the references I gave are indeed my own expositions. Is this what makes the suggestions wrong? Or perchance are you holding back rational considerations or scientific data that justify-promote your blatent assertions and suggestion?

 

Please see response to #3.

 

 

Also, please watch your tone when responding to the request of a moderator on this forum. Thanks again.

[Dov Henis]

I. Data

 

Hear it is again, genetic data mentioned in my earlier post:

 

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=207

 

B, 2), Chapter Four

 

a) From Science, 2 Sept 2005:

"Page's team compared human and chimp Ys to see whether either lineage has lost functional genes since they split.

 

The researchers found that the chimp had indeed suffered the slings and arrows of evolutionary fortune. Of the 16 functional genes in this part of the human Y, chimps had lost the function of five due to mutations. In contrast, humans had all 11 functional genes also seen on the chimp Y. "The human Y chromosome hasn't lost a gene in 6 million years," says Page. "It seems like the demise of the hypothesis of the demise of the Y," says geneticist Andrew Clark of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York."

 

(:) But look at this: From Science, Vol 309, 16 Sept 2005, Evolving Sequence and Expression:"An analysis of the evolution of both gene sequences and expression patterns in humans and chimpanzees...shows that...surprisingly, genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences".

 

Surprisingly...???

--------------------

 

II.

 

But the above data are negligible in extent vs the immense data all around us the world over. Just open your eys and mind and ask yourself what you see when you train your eyes on CULTURE, and assess it and define it. Some people would be amazed to learn that some of the greatest scientific comprehensions come to human comprehension this way...

----------------

 

And re "watching language" I suggest to all of us that it should go both ways, from members to moderators and to other members and from moderators to members, even though we do not see each other and we do not know each other. There is no need to find out who you are addressing before you post; just watch language in all posts...

 

Respectfully

 

Dov

[InfiniteNow]

And re "watching language" I suggest to all of us that it should go both ways, from members to moderators and to other members and from moderators to members, even though we do not see each other and we do not know each other. There is no need to find out who you are addressing before you post; just watch language in all posts...

Absolutely agreed, and if you'd followed your own advise here, there wouldn't have been any problem. My point is basically that moderator requests tend to be for a reason and should not be responded to with hostility... but hey, that goes for any member. :esmoking:

[Dov Henis]

I pledge to remember this until the day I die, if I live that long...

 

DH

[Dov Henis]

I was recently involved in a discussion in an anthropology forum about the nature and definition of Western Culture. The (anthropologist) moderator remarked that "There are limits to defining Western Culture, when culture itself is ambiguous". I looked up the definition of culture in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_culture and was indeed disappointed at the paucity and inadequacy of the comprehension and definition of culture.

 

The comprehensions and definitions of Western Culture that I found via screen searches were even poorer.

 

For me as a much more amateur biologist than a sub-amateur anthropologist (in all things I'm amateur) culture is definitely not an ambiguous term and consequently the term Western culture is definitely clear.

 

Firstly it is elementary, every cultural matter is a human artifact which involves biological intra-/inter-cell expression and/or process; biological and cultural domains are not ontologically distinct, but instead culture inheres in biology. This is posited in the opening post of this thread, defining culture and explaining its role and its functional mechanism. There is definitely no ambiguity whatsoever in the explanation and definition.

 

Consequent to my (amateurish...) clarification of the general term culture I suggest that my recent definition of Western culture is also correct and clear, i.e.:

 

"Western culture" is the ongoing dynamically evolving science-informed culture, initiated in Western Europe, tinted with a variety of regional/national/ethnic/religious aspects. Its essential characteristic is a continuous flexible adaptation to ever evolving science-informed findings-comprehensions, with various degrees and modes of concurrent dismissal or modification of traditional supernatural cultural phenotypic aspects".

 

 

Finally, whereas Culture in general is biologically a genotypic matter, Western or Chinese or Muslim etc., cultures are broad phenotypic human entities, each of which may be further subdivided within its type.

 

Thus I ( amateurishly ) think...

 

Dov

[HydrogenBond]

Human culture can affect genetics. One can take two twins and bring one up in a fourth world culture and the other in a first world culture. The impact on their biology will be quite significant. In fact, if you leave both in these two worlds to breed for many generations, their DNA will take two different paths due to the environmental influences brought on by culture or the lack thereof.

 

I firmly believe that DNA led to the human brain. The human brain is now on top of the DNA. The reason this is so, is that the environment can impact the DNA and the human mind can control the environment. Darwin and evolution may have been in affect up to humans. But a new chapter in the book of life opened about 10,000 years ago, where the DNA begins to play more of a support role.

 

That is what free will is about. I can be born a perfect genetic specimen. I can choose to live a life of burning the candle at both ends and end up with more disability than a less perfect specimen. I can pass this free will on to my children, and after a few generations, the perfect line is gone. An animal can't do this since it lacks free will. It is govened by genetics. But humans are govened by the brain and all that entails, like will, choice, culture, knowledge, bias, etc.,

[InfiniteNow]

I firmly believe that DNA led to the human brain.

Can you please clarify what you mean here? My thought was, of course it did. It also led to the human liver, the human kidney, the human dot dot dot...

 

The human brain is now on top of the DNA.

Again, can you please clarify your meaning to the non-psychic?

 

 

An animal can't do this since it lacks free will.

Oh yeah? Prove it. Really, I would like to see proof of this.

 

 

Cheers. :evil:

[HydrogenBond]

What I was saying is that the evolution of the DNA reached a pinacle at the human brain, in the sense that DNA was originally driving evolution just like contemporary theory believes. Once the modern human brain evolved, i.e., the rapid rise of culture about 7-10K years ago, humans have played in esculating role in shaping the environment. For example, if one believes human intervention is causing global warming think what that alone could do to the humans and animals of the future. This would occur much faster than nature intented.

 

The rapidly changing environment, due to the human mind, is taking the place of the much slower natural changes by the earth. One does not have to wait for comets, shifts in the magnetic field etc., for very significant changes to be place. Human intervention is adding an extra layer of potential that is driving the evolution of the DNA, faster. The reason this is so, is because the human brain is seated above the DNA.

[Dov Henis]

- evolution of DNA

- DNA originally driving evolution

- once modern human brain evolved

- nature intented

- the human brain is seated above the DNA.

 

Dear HB,

 

I uncomfortably and sincerely respectfully apologize for suggesting reflection on the appparent confusion between genes/genome and DNA and on the vagueness of the above quoted terms.

 

Sincerely yrs,

Dov

[hallenrm]

Dear Dov,

 

I am happy, if I am getting you right you are expressing opinions that are very similar to my opinions expressed in a thread Do biological organisms have extra chromosomal sources of info?

Maybe you may want to go through that thread! :confused: :doh:

[InfiniteNow]

What I was saying is that the evolution of the DNA reached a pinacle at the human brain

It's all downhill from here huh? No more progress, no more advancement required, the brain has been achieved. :cup:

[Dov Henis]

Dov, Do biological organisms have extra chromosomal sources of info?[/url]

Maybe you may want to go through that thread! :lol: :eek:

 

I truely wish I could go thru it, and thru other undoubtedly interesting writeups. My problem is that due to age and to various daily chores ( I am also a fruit farmer, not a gentlemen farmer that raises nothing but his hat...) I find hardly one hour/day for forum matters, and the refered thread is many-paged.

 

Nevertheless, will try to take a look ASAP...

 

Apologetically,

 

Dov

[Turtle]

Each and every one of our capabilities and functions is inherited from our predecessors including communication.

 

It strikes me that 'capabilities' and 'functions' as you use them ought to have the preface 'initial'. I understand that a lot of what goes on during gestation has a tremendous impact on the fetus; for example drinking or smoking or exposure to lead, etc..

 

OT aside: What kind of fruit do you raise Dov?