---

Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Bob's Boyfriend on 09-30-04 14:35

In article ,
"Immortalist" wrote:

> "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> > "Immortalist" wrote:
> >
> > > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you
> > > > > step
> > > > in
> > > > > with us dude.
> > > >
> > > > You should rent a clue.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of
> > > course
> > > you
> > > thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about what
> > > I
> > > said
> > > to him?
> > >
> > > > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in
> > > > exceptionally
> > > > > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to diseases, if
> > > > > they
> > > > lived
> > > > > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may not
> > > > > be
> > > > selected
> > > > > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live out
> > > > > their
> > > > entire
> > > > > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in species
> > > > > that
> > > > live out
> > > > > their entire lifspans without predation.
> > > >
> > > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or what do
> > > you
> > > mean by this?
> > >
> > > > Longer than
> > > > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex organic
> > > > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the
> > > > telomeric
> > > > limitations of DNA being replicated.
> > > >
> > >
> > > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation before
> > > they
> > > would have normally died then mutations,
> >
> > Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by
> > whom?
> >
>
> During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo
> group
> (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during much of
> civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the biological
> life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural
> realities
> sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.

There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above
that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
statement above was "longer than their current life span".

My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
whom?

> > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
> > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
> > victims of such predation.
> >
>
> Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most people
> could
> be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to insist
> that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe to
> be
> the case.

And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you
consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?

> > > that would influence or be expressed
> > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no
> > > selective
> > > pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
> > > necessarily
> > > eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could still
> > > happen
> > > or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
> > > contingency
> > > which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that mutations
> > > can
> > > creep
> > > in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
> > > senilicidical
> > > traits
> > > is 30 years old anyways.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Immortalist on 09-30-04 22:36

"Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
news:together-5D5A14.17353330092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article ,
> "Immortalist" wrote:
>
> > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > > > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before you
> > > > > > step
> > > > > in
> > > > > > with us dude.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should rent a clue.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of
> > > > course
> > > > you
> > > > thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about what
> > > > I
> > > > said
> > > > to him?
> > > >
> > > > > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in
> > > > > exceptionally
> > > > > > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to diseases, if
> > > > > > they
> > > > > lived
> > > > > > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may not
> > > > > > be
> > > > > selected
> > > > > > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live out
> > > > > > their
> > > > > entire
> > > > > > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in species
> > > > > > that
> > > > > live out
> > > > > > their entire lifspans without predation.
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or what do
> > > > you
> > > > mean by this?
> > > >
> > > > > Longer than
> > > > > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex organic
> > > > > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the
> > > > > telomeric
> > > > > limitations of DNA being replicated.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation before
> > > > they
> > > > would have normally died then mutations,
> > >
> > > Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> > > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by
> > > whom?
> > >
> >
> > During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo
> > group
> > (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during much of
> > civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the biological
> > life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural
> > realities
> > sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.
>
> There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above
> that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
> statement above was "longer than their current life span".
>
> My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
> specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
> whom?
>

I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the topic that
much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome" theory and
explained my position on that.

> > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
> > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
> > > victims of such predation.
> > >
> >
> > Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most people
> > could
> > be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to insist
> > that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe to
> > be
> > the case.
>
> And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you
> consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?
>

Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries?

> > > > that would influence or be expressed
> > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no
> > > > selective
> > > > pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
> > > > necessarily
> > > > eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could still
> > > > happen
> > > > or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
> > > > contingency
> > > > which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that mutations
> > > > can
> > > > creep
> > > > in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
> > > > senilicidical
> > > > traits
> > > > is 30 years old anyways.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Bob's Boyfriend on 10-01-04 03:35

In article ,
"Immortalist" wrote:

> "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> news:together-5D5A14.17353330092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article ,
> > "Immortalist" wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > > news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > > In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> > > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > > > > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > with us dude.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should rent a clue.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of
> > > > > course
> > > > > you
> > > > > thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about
> > > > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > said
> > > > > to him?
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in
> > > > > > exceptionally
> > > > > > > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to
> > > > > > > diseases, if
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > lived
> > > > > > > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > selected
> > > > > > > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > their
> > > > > > entire
> > > > > > > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in
> > > > > > > species
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > live out
> > > > > > > their entire lifspans without predation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or
> > > > > what do
> > > > > you
> > > > > mean by this?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Longer than
> > > > > > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex
> > > > > > organic
> > > > > > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the
> > > > > > telomeric
> > > > > > limitations of DNA being replicated.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation
> > > > > before
> > > > > they
> > > > > would have normally died then mutations,
> > > >
> > > > Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> > > > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by
> > > > whom?
> > > >
> > >
> > > During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo
> > > group
> > > (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during
> > > much of
> > > civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the
> > > biological
> > > life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural
> > > realities
> > > sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.
> >
> > There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above
> > that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
> > statement above was "longer than their current life span".
> >
> > My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
> > specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
> > whom?
> >
>
> I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the topic
> that
> much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome" theory
> and
> explained my position on that.

It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the
premise above.

> > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
> > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
> > > > victims of such predation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most
> > > people
> > > could
> > > be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to
> > > insist
> > > that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe
> > > to
> > > be
> > > the case.
> >
> > And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you
> > consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?
> >
>
> Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries?

That's vague. Again, I must ask to what degree (a scale of 1 to 100
seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular
group or other species)?

> > > > > that would influence or be expressed
> > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no
> > > > > selective
> > > > > pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
> > > > > necessarily
> > > > > eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could
> > > > > still
> > > > > happen
> > > > > or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
> > > > > contingency
> > > > > which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that
> > > > > mutations
> > > > > can
> > > > > creep
> > > > > in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
> > > > > senilicidical
> > > > > traits
> > > > > is 30 years old anyways.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Immortalist on 10-01-04 09:36

"Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
news:together-52B57F.06351801102004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article ,
> "Immortalist" wrote:
>
> > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > news:together-5D5A14.17353330092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > In article ,
> > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > > > news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > > > In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> > > > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > > > > > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about before
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > with us dude.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You should rent a clue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And of
> > > > > > course
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused about
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > said
> > > > > > to him?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in
> > > > > > > exceptionally
> > > > > > > > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to
> > > > > > > > diseases, if
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > lived
> > > > > > > > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed, may
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > selected
> > > > > > > > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals live
> > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > entire
> > > > > > > > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in
> > > > > > > > species
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > live out
> > > > > > > > their entire lifspans without predation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or
> > > > > > what do
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > mean by this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Longer than
> > > > > > > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex
> > > > > > > organic
> > > > > > > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without the
> > > > > > > telomeric
> > > > > > > limitations of DNA being replicated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > would have normally died then mutations,
> > > > >
> > > > > Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> > > > > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and by
> > > > > whom?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the homo
> > > > group
> > > > (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during
> > > > much of
> > > > civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the
> > > > biological
> > > > life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric cultural
> > > > realities
> > > > sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.
> > >
> > > There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to above
> > > that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
> > > statement above was "longer than their current life span".
> > >
> > > My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
> > > specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
> > > whom?
> > >
> >
> > I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the topic
> > that
> > much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome" theory
> > and
> > explained my position on that.
>
> It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the
> premise above.
>

When you entered me and Tim's conversation the subject was already shifted to the
effects of ancient enviroments upon trait creep into the genome. You tried to
change the subject to the present. We could change to the present if I can see
the relevence to the "genetic dust bin theory" we were debating.

> > > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
> > > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
> > > > > victims of such predation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most
> > > > people
> > > > could
> > > > be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough to
> > > > insist
> > > > that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you believe
> > > > to
> > > > be
> > > > the case.
> > >
> > > And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do you
> > > consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?
> > >
> >
> > Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries?
>
> That's vague. Again, I must ask to what degree (a scale of 1 to 100
> seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular
> group or other species)?
>

The degree currently would be higher or lower depending on the criterion or
standard of judgement. We haven't agreed to one yet. If you are asking me to post
a specific number what is the standard for judgeing such things;

The Problem of the Criterion

A general argument against the invocation of any standard for knowledge has come
to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As we have just seen, there have
been disputes about standards of knowledge. Some are about particular kinds of
arguments that provide evidence for knowledge claims. As we will see shortly,
others are about the degree of evidential support or reliability required for
knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument designed to instill doubt
that any such standard can be established.

Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the dispute is to be
settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It would do no good
of each side simply to assert its position without argument. So how would a
standard of knowledge (or "criterion of truth," in the language of the Stoics) be
defended? It could only be defended by reference to some standard or other. If
the standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged. If
another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be answered either
by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another standard. So either the process
of invoking standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and
in neither case would the dispute be settled rationally.

Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question whether he
can justify his acceptance of his own theory of justification. He rejects the
appeal to a higher-order theory of justification as well as dogmatic acceptance
of the theory (p. 228). This leaves only circularity, or a "loop" of
justification. Lehrer defends the loop of justification as being virtuous.

http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm

>
> > > > > > that would influence or be expressed
> > > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly no
> > > > > > selective
> > > > > > pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
> > > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer could
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > happen
> > > > > > or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
> > > > > > contingency
> > > > > > which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that
> > > > > > mutations
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > creep
> > > > > > in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
> > > > > > senilicidical
> > > > > > traits
> > > > > > is 30 years old anyways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Bob's Boyfriend on 10-01-04 10:13

In article <_Mydndsyx5iyFcDcRVn-og@comcast.com>,
"Immortalist" wrote:

> "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> news:together-52B57F.06351801102004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article ,
> > "Immortalist" wrote:
> >
> > > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > > news:together-5D5A14.17353330092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > > In article ,
> > > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Bob's Boyfriend" wrote in message
> > > > > news:together-0D3218.02005230092004@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > > > > > In article <8qCdnYWM5ufcD8bcRVn-iA@comcast.com>,
> > > > > > "Immortalist" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Nico Kadel-Garcia" wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:gqqdnYiQjILQ9cbcRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Immortalist" wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:sr6dne2eieKxHcTcRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You should try and learn what evolutionary theory is about
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > with us dude.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You should rent a clue.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you understand the person's position that I said that to? And
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > course
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > thought I was talking to you? Who are you and why get aroused
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > said
> > > > > > > to him?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since the animals are not living out their full life spans in
> > > > > > > > exceptionally
> > > > > > > > > hazardous environments, any mutations that could lead to
> > > > > > > > > diseases, if
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > lived
> > > > > > > > > out their entire life span in order for them to be expressed,
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > selected
> > > > > > > > > out. Therefore when the environment changes and the animals
> > > > > > > > > live
> > > > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > entire
> > > > > > > > > lifespans then these disease may happen more often than in
> > > > > > > > > species
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > live out
> > > > > > > > > their entire lifspans without predation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The idea that "their full life span" is infinite is ridiculous.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which part of the statement did you take as meaning "infinite" or
> > > > > > > what do
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > mean by this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Longer than
> > > > > > > > their current average life span, sure. But evenutally complex
> > > > > > > > organic
> > > > > > > > systems break down, due to factors like cancer, even without
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > telomeric
> > > > > > > > limitations of DNA being replicated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I asserted that, if the individuals are killed by predation
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > would have normally died then mutations,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Predation? I'm noticing that there is a particular leaning towards
> > > > > > paranoia in several threads. Which humans are being preyed upon and
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > whom?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > During the ancient past, particularly in the Pleistocene period the
> > > > > homo
> > > > > group
> > > > > (Australopithecus) was preyed upon by predators in Africa. But during
> > > > > much of
> > > > > civilization the actual life span was about 25 to 45 years but the
> > > > > biological
> > > > > life span was much longer. So not only predators but barbaric
> > > > > cultural
> > > > > realities
> > > > > sustained the influx of senilicidical traits.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing that I can find in the post that you responded to
> > > > above
> > > > that concened itself with earlier hominid species. In fact, the
> > > > statement above was "longer than their current life span".
> > > >
> > > > My question was and which went unanswered (and I'll be more time
> > > > specific) which humans of today are being preyed upon and by what or
> > > > whom?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would ask you to try making another thread if you want to change the
> > > topic
> > > that
> > > much. I was responding to the "traits that can creep into the genome"
> > > theory
> > > and
> > > explained my position on that.
> >
> > It isn't another topic. It is a question based on an assertion in the
> > premise above.
> >
>
> When you entered me and Tim's conversation the subject was already shifted to
> the
> effects of ancient enviroments upon trait creep into the genome. You tried to
> change the subject to the present. We could change to the present if I can
> see
> the relevence to the "genetic dust bin theory" we were debating.
>
> > > > > > I'm curious how people who tend to view themselves as rational and
> > > > > > intelligent view themselves as possible, probable and then likely
> > > > > > victims of such predation.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Rational people would generally believe it highly unlikely that most
> > > > > people
> > > > > could
> > > > > be forced back into such barbarism but they are not ignorant enough
> > > > > to
> > > > > insist
> > > > > that they couldn't be as your propositions seems to indicate you
> > > > > believe
> > > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > the case.
> > > >
> > > > And I'm asking that we test the rationality of this premise. What do
> > > > you
> > > > consider is the degree to which it "could" be this way?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well the degree noticed between rich and poor countries?
> >
> > That's vague. Again, I must ask to what degree (a scale of 1 to 100
> > seems fair and reasonable) and by whom (an individual or a particular
> > group or other species)?
> >
>
> The degree currently would be higher or lower depending on the criterion or
> standard of judgement. We haven't agreed to one yet. If you are asking me to
> post
> a specific number what is the standard for judgeing such things;
>
>
> The Problem of the Criterion
>
> A general argument against the invocation of any standard for knowledge has
> come
> to be known as "the problem of the criterion." As we have just seen, there
> have
> been disputes about standards of knowledge. Some are about particular kinds
> of
> arguments that provide evidence for knowledge claims. As we will see shortly,
> others are about the degree of evidential support or reliability required for
> knowledge. The Pyrrhonian skeptics used an argument designed to instill doubt
> that any such standard can be established.
>
> Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge. If the dispute is
> to be
> settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it. It would do no
> good
> of each side simply to assert its position without argument. So how would a
> standard of knowledge (or "criterion of truth," in the language of the
> Stoics) be
> defended? It could only be defended by reference to some standard or other.
> If
> the standard under dispute is invoked, then the question has been begged. If
> another standard is appealed to, the question arises again, to be answered
> either
> by circular reasoning or by appeal to yet another standard. So either the
> process
> of invoking standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning,
> and
> in neither case would the dispute be settled rationally.
>
> Lehrer takes on the problem of criterion in the guise of the question whether
> he
> can justify his acceptance of his own theory of justification. He rejects the
> appeal to a higher-order theory of justification as well as dogmatic
> acceptance
> of the theory (p. 228). This leaves only circularity, or a "loop" of
> justification. Lehrer defends the loop of justification as being virtuous.
>
> http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/tkch9.htm
> http://hume.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
>
> >
> > > > > > > that would influence or be expressed
> > > > > > > during that later time, could slip into their genomes with nearly
> > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > selective
> > > > > > > pressure against or for those mutations. By saying that I did not
> > > > > > > necessarily
> > > > > > > eliminate or promote the possibility that factors like cancer
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > happen
> > > > > > > or not. There is no contradiction here because it is based upon a
> > > > > > > contingency
> > > > > > > which asserts neither possibility to propose the thesis that
> > > > > > > mutations
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > creep
> > > > > > > in because of predation shortening lifespans. This theory of
> > > > > > > senilicidical
> > > > > > > traits
> > > > > > > is 30 years old anyways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

If I wanted Lehrer's opinions then, I would read them. I am having a
discussion with you however. Referring me to what other people say about
this is rather pointless. (PS. This reminds me of talking to theists who
frequent quote biblical passages rather stating an opinion.)

I asked a simple question about a scenario that was proposed. I don't
thing that my requestion was unreasonable.

In the example of an individual reading about a serial killer in a
newspaper, in YOUR opinion, what would be the reasonableness (logical or
rational) of that assumption when hearing a clunking at the window. I
suggested a scale of 1 to 100 as a means to measure the likely,
probable, possible or unlikely event of this being true.

Re: Did we evolve to die? And can we change that?-news story -- Posted by Meme warrior on 09-28-04 13:09

"andromeda" wrote in message news:...
> If aging is programmed into our genes, we might just be able to do something
> about it, some researchers think.
> http://www.world-science.net/othernews/040927_ageprogramfrm.htm

That article is wrong for two reasons, first genetically programmed
death doesn't rest on the notion of group selectionism, second death
genes won't be that easy to clean out of our genome.
Fatal genes can litter our genetic code and won't be cleaned out
unless the have a fatal effect that occurs before the gene's have a
change to reproduce. For example in humans, if a fatal gene doesn't
cause death until after puberty, then the genes could be passed on to
the next generation. Thus by random chance the majority of fatal genes
that accumlate in our genetic code don't act until about 70 to 90
years of age. Like a parabolic curve with a peak at 80 years, starting
at puberty.
This doesn't mean that fatal genes occur because it benefits the
group, just that it doesn't disadvantage the individual enough to be
eliminated by evolution. Kinda like the genes of our appendix.
As for being able to filter out the fatal genes from our genome. This
is a problem because there is probably a lot a genes that cause death,
we only notice the one the acts first. Any attempt in this area, while
possible, is more complicated then the articale is suggesting.

Start

« Previous 1 2 3

Related Discussion:

Holistic Drug and Alcohol Rehabiltation Program that Works! (1 posts)
by Jerry - Last post on: 06-12-04 08:34
Holistic drug and alcohol rehabilitation program designed by recovering addicts with over 17 years of experience. They specialize in chronic relapse and dual diagnosis. Call anytime 24/7 for a free consultation at 800-559-9503. You can find out more information at their websites located at: http://... (Read More)

New Neuropathy Treatment To Regenerate Nerve Function (1 posts)
by Gumbo - Last post on: 02-02-05 19:01
New Neuropathy Treatment To Regenerate Nerve Function A novel therapeutic designed to protect and stimulate the regeneration of peripheral nerve function in diabetics suffering from peripheral neuropathy Sangamo BioSciences Files New Drug Application for ZFP Therapeutic to Treat Diabe... (Read More)

rather than be fat (9 posts)
by tigerlilly@privacy.net.org.com - Last post on: 07-26-05 15:49
In a survey of elementary school students, girls commented that they would prefer to live through a nuclear holocaust, lose both of their parents or get sick with cancer rather than be fat. ... (Read More)

New Group Invitation (4 posts)
by mandare - Last post on: 09-18-05 17:24
http://groups.google.com/group/Osteo-Arthritis-Treatment-Reviews?lnk=la Go share your experences with the latest treatment options available for Osteo Arthritis. What worked for you? What didnt work for you? ... (Read More)

Top Discussions From Our Archives

diabetes and arthritis

AFFORDABLE DRUGS Huge web site to by you medications online

Omega-3 and Gout ??

Other Discussion Categories

Diabetes Symptoms
Health Care Policy

Home | Discussion Archives |