…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
There must be some evolutionary advantage to having a thin skin, right?
And whining.
I, for one, would miss Kantian Naturalist if he stopped participating here. Even when I disagree with him, I often learn from his comments. That’s not the case for everyone here.
Ditto.
I wouldn’t want them to be.
It makes the decision who to throw out of the lifeboat first easier.
Hahaha. I’d be gone so fast.
Have fun with Mung.
Glen Davidson
Throwing away potential meat?
Waste not, want not, I say.
Glen Davidson
Mostly gristle in my case anyhow. 🙁
I absolutely agree.
I second that. I read everything KN posts with great interest. One of the site’s top posters hands down
I understand there’s not much gristle to him either! 😉
Cooked over a slow fire with the right sauce even gristle is tasty
Yeah, but since there’s so little meat on those bones the sharks would be back in a jiffy. They want Patrick, because, you know, he’s so full of himself. Lot’s of meat.
If I am in a lifeboat with no chance of rescue for a long time, I want Frankie. His carcass would keep me alive for months.
Lots of baloney!
Glen Davidson
now this is funny I don’t care who you are
peace
Being fed to the sharks would be preferable
It might keep you barely alive, but it would be a cursed life.
Evolution can’t explain that or anything else.
ID explains that as well as the possibility of taste, and Darwinists don’t deserve to taste.
Glen Davidson
Yesterday, one of my daughters asked me what, if any, evolutionary benefit was conferred by male pattern baldness. I told her that to the extent that men get older they make shittier parents, so it’s good for them to get less attractive, and that that’s also why some geezers seem utterly compelled to turn to comb-overs. It’s like wearing repellent.
But I also said I’d ask you guys. So?
HAHAHAHAHA! Being one of the baldies, I think this is pretty good!
Although, it is a self-disputing explanation. If baldness in later life is good, how is it selected for? And if such is aanti-attractiveness characteristic that would imply that folks with it would mate less frequently thus wiping out the trait PDQ. Still a great explanation…
My understanding is that it’s a rather diluted, positive trait. In most cultures, baldness is an indication of a man’s maturity and dominance in society and thus imparts it’s own advantage in certain situations for middle age men. Note, however, that it’s a diluted trait – that is, it’s overall advantage (or contributing disadvantage) is correlated with other traits (social status, income, fitness, personality, etc). In other words, by itself, it likely has only a little impact on a man’s overall attractiveness, but when coupled with other traits, it can either enhance or reduce a man’s overall appeal.
Consider some examples of men who are bald, but also considered very attractive: Bruce Willis, Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Patrick Stewart, Kobi Bryant, etc… Clearly for some men, the trope Bald of Awesome applies.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BaldOfAwesome
Seems unlikely that some males would be selected to signal “don’t mate with me.” I mean, how?
Maybe it’s not about attractiveness, but about looking fierce or some such thing (or, while there’s still some hair to grab in battle, at least it’s presumably less successful with a less hairy man). Got your long beard, shaggy long hair fringe, and a bald top. Somewhat older, usually, maybe more experienced at warfare and tribal politics–maybe it’s intimidating.
Or not. I mean, who knows, really? Even to guess we’d probably have to understand earlier societies much better, and what men with beards and bald tops would mean to women and men. I brought up looking fierce mostly because we just don’t know, not because it’s particularly likely in my view.
There’s always the possibility that it’s detrimental, but just wasn’t detrimental enough to be eliminated from the population. American natives seem not to go bald much, with some tribes seeming not to have any male pattern baldness at all. Maybe they eliminated a detrimental gene or genes–or maybe they failed to gain a helpful gene or genes
Some traits have obvious reproduction advantages, while effects of something like bald males are rather obscure. Doesn’t kill him or seriously disadvantage him with respect to the environment itself (hats, if there’s a problem), so one thinks it’s more likely to affect his social standing. But that might be positive, negative, or largely neutral, and who knows how it would be taken in earlier times? There’s not always an answer.
Glen Davidson
Is it possible that the same alelle(s) that cause baldness have some other effect(s)? Maybe some advantageous one(s)?
Yes, there’s that. Higher levels of dht, responsible for many masculine traits, are thought to dispose a man toward baldness. So it’s possible that higher dht levels are beneficial and baldness is just a small(?) cost. But then, some males have fairly high dht levels and don’t go bald, either, so again, we’re left wondering if baldness signals high dht mostly beneficially, or accidentally at some cost, or primarily neutrally.
But why would hair on some males’ heads be affected by dht levels in the first place? Even if accidental, it doesn’t seem to be something shared with our ape cousins.
Lot of questions, not even much prospect for answers.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Thanks Glen
Well, duh.
How long has it been since we figured out that most things are not positively selected, and a great many odd traits are hitchhiking on alleles selected for other effects?
Once you are past age 40, you are out of Darwin’s range.
On a completely different subject from our usual lines of discussion, I’ve been trying to understand something about the universe that is alluding me.
Given the concept of the inflation of the universe from a singularity and all contents of said universe being contained within that singularity and given that the inflation is an expansion of the parameters of said universe itself, and not (as some seem to misunderstand) and actual ‘explosion’ of the contents of the singularity into a void, I’ve been wondering why the matter within the the universe would be so dispersed and not actually confined or congregated to “one side” (or rather, some given location)? In other words, where would the initial inertia on the matter come from and why would it not ‘push’ all matter along the same vector? Likely I’m envisioning this completely inaccurately, so I’m hoping to be corrected. Thanks!
I think you are envisioning it inaccurately, but that’s just a guess.
I personally would think we are still within that singularity, but that’s just a weird idea of mine.
Not being a biologist, I have no idea 😀
I was 22 when I began losing hair.
I don’t know you, but I know people who’ve had early hair loss. I didn’t notice it interfered with reproduction.
It’s either neutral, or it rides on a trait that is selected.
Robin,
I am probably as mystified by cosmology as you, but my own view of it is that once the fundamental forces started to appear, matter simply could not stay where it was, all gathered in one location. Exclusion principles, and that sort of thing, enforced physical separation forcibly, but without a particular vector, before gravity started to locally pull parts of it back together.
Yeah, that’s kind of my impression, though the gravity thing is what is bugging me most. Here’s the thing: even if you factor in something (hypothetical) like a “Planck Inertial Cosmological Kick” (PICK), we’re still left with gravity from the mass of all matter rapidly becoming the dominant force on all other matter, overcoming whatever initial inertial force(s) on matter, and pulling everything together (and thus localizing and clustering matter in some area of the universe). But that’s not happening. By many measures, matter is moving away from other matter at an increasing rate. More to the point though, matter is (again by most measures and models) pretty evenly distributed about the universe. Why?
Apparently I’m not the only person this has dawned on as Googling on the subject provides a spectrum of responses (some waaaay beyond my pay grade).
My understanding is the inflation is the explanation for the general sameness (Cosmological isotropy and inflation) of the universe.
Many quantum fluctuations were the seeds which led to galaxy formation (instead of the general attraction of all to one point as I understand you to be concerned with). See History of Cosmic Structure Formation.
AAAAHHHH!! Ok, that explains things a little better. Thanks Bruce.
Yes, that presents a clearer picture of the situation in my mind. Matter didn’t need to “move out” to fill the inflating space (and then collect to form galaxies and so forth); it was already “there” (in some sense) to begin with.
Mindpowers Murray has a post on “why deny objective morality”
Hilarious given his previous views.
Richardthughes,
Yes, I saw that. Rather pathetic, somehow. The contrast with KN’s OP on objective reality is striking.
Well naturally, whether gasoline makes (gas-powered) automobiles work is something one just has to discover for oneself, but how humans should act across all cultures and situations is completely objective truth.
Or maybe he gave up his many claims about not believing in demonstrable truth (small t and all that). He hardly needs to be consistent, given his subjectivity.
Glen Davidson
Faux Skepticism. Embrace it.
I loved this description of TSZ’s most prolific poster offered on ATBC:
It was so spot on I laughed for an hour. 🙂
I expect he’s most offended by the description of his turds as tiny,
Glen Davidson
And now, Barry Arrogant is blaming all malaria deaths on Rachel Carson, and calling anyone who provides actual facts that contradict his view as liars, contemptable, shameless and the devil’s spawn.
He blames Rachel Carson? Why not go to the source?
“”Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts…..What sort of designer is that? What sort of “fine-tuning” leads to untold human misery? To countless mothers mourning countless children? Did a hateful, malign being make intelligent life in order to torture it? One who relishes cries of pain? Maybe. Maybe not.” (Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution, p. 237.)
And some accuse God of being indifferent to suffering.
Not Behe.
Glen Davidson
Can you post that link? Thanks.
walto:
Link
Bite your tongue. Words like that will get you banned from UD.
keiths,
Thank you.