Support NeoGAF

[cpp_is_king]

....oh?









... so. Either the both of you can't read a lick (which based on the thread and where we ended up on the subject, I am inclined to believe that is the case), or you are really just not comfortable with being wrong on the internet. Either way, you are only doing yourself a huge fucking disservice.

Hey, it's just natural selection.

I don't know what world you live in, but your own posts which you just quoted literally say exactly what I said they said, and exactly the opposite of what you're claiming they say.

Here's how this went down:

Someone else: Natural selection involves hereditary reproduction
Jaeger: I've been saying that all along
cpp_is_king: No you haven't.
Jaeger: Yes I have, look at my previous posts.
Jaeger[1]: Humans that slaughter other animals for their horns for proven bullshit medicines, that the general public and law forbid and prosecute is not natural selection.
Jaeger[2]: No. It is not. No matter how many times you try and summarize it, that's not how natural selection, works.
Jaeger[3]: Exactly. behavior that humans dally in of this heinous nature is not natural. Taking horns, and tusks, and skins for shit like pelts and rugs is not natural.
Jaeger[4]: Unless guns start growing our my hands, us slaughtering defenseless animals (literally the whole animal kingdom is at our mercy) is not natural. We aren't killing them for sustenance. We aren't killing them for survival.

I honestly thought we were speaking English in this thread, but now I'm not so sure anymore.

 

[CornBurrito]

At this point it's just down to a semantic issue. Biodiversity and natural selection cannot exist without each other. But natural selection refers to a very specific genetic process of combining two sets of genes together through reproduction, mixed in with some random mutation, and then specific genes win out over time. So if the question is "Is the very specific and well-defined act of humans killing white rhinos natural selection?" then the answer seems to be no, because the specific act of murder does not involve reproduction.

On the other hand, the results of that action will certainly affect natural selection going forward, because a species (or subspecies, to be more precise) going extinct will affect overall biodiversity, which in turn feeds back into natural selection. But if we consider two alternate phrasings of the original question:

1) Did the rhinos become extinct as a result of natural selection?
2) Will the extinction of the rhinos contribute to the process of natural selection in the future?

Then the answer to both questions seems to be yes. In the first case, everything is a "result" of natural selection, even if only indirectly. The rhinos were not able to adapt quickly enough to grow smaller horns, for example. One way in which they might have done this would have been if they bred with other rhinos which had not had such coveted horns, and then (through natural selection), their horns may have started becoming less prominent.

If it is just a semantic issue of how we define "natural" then I don't get why Jeager is throwing a tantrum. Oh no we disagree over whether humans are a part of nature or not!

 

[SamVimes]

I don't think it's a big stretch to say that killing something before it's able to reproduce falls into the reproduction pattern of natural selection.

 

[cpp_is_king]

If it is just a semantic issue of how we define "natural" then I don't get why Jeager is throwing a tantrum. Oh no we disagree over whether humans are a part of nature or not!

The source of all the confusion (including Jaeger's confusion, but also my own originally) is that the entire word "natural" is misleading. A better term would be "hereditary selection". The two articles I linked earlier go into this further, but it essentially boils down to natural selection =/= survival of the fittest.

I don't think it's a big stretch to say that killing something before it's able to reproduce falls into the reproduction pattern of natural selection.

Read the two articles I linked. I agree it wouldn't be a stretch, except that to the scientific community, the term "natural selection" is specific enough that that it excludes that. From the first link above:

Moreover, it’s not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

Basically a reproduction event is a necessary precursor to natural selection.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Horn size is a heritable trait. I imagine there could be a mutant rhino without a horn. Humans uniting for horns would select for rhinos with smaller horns or without horns. The rhino evolved from a hornless ancestor btw.

This is actually a current hypothesis with elephants. It seems populations are converging on smaller and smaller tusk sizes in response to poaching. Or in short, natural selection. http://www.sabisabi.com/wildfacts/functional-evolution-in-animals

Fair enough, but I would argue that natural selection requires a "natural" reasoning (an ecosystem balancing act) for why a certain trait causes it's extinction or another's dominance. Killing off animals because of their horns is entirely arbitrary towards the survival of humans which makes it much more akin to a natural disaster where a certain species might get destroyed because of an earthquake or meteor. It has nothing to do with the traits themselves, rather the significance people are assigning them (medicinal/spiritual use).

But it all does come down to whether you want to include or exclude human stupidity into/from scientific theory, haha.

 

[evilromero]

There were over 2,000 wild northern white rhinos in 1960, but habitat destruction and poaching shrunk that number down to only 15 by the end of the 1980s.

I know there's a strong human defense force here, but I will always say that we're the shittiest species on planet earth. Hands down.

 

[SamVimes]

The source of all the confusion (including Jaeger's confusion, but also my own originally) is that the entire word "natural" is misleading. A better term would be "hereditary selection". The two articles I linked earlier go into this further, but it essentially boils down to natural selection =/= survival of the fittest.



Read the two articles I linked. I agree it wouldn't be a stretch, except that to the scientific community, the term "natural selection" is specific enough that that it excludes that. From the first link above:



Basically a reproduction event is a necessary precursor to natural selection.

Moreover, it’s not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

Uhm i don't know if i'm missing something but this seems to confirm what i said?
Does it change anything if the animal already reached reproductive age but was killed before he was able to reproduce?

 

[xbhaskarx]

I know there's a strong human defense force here, but I will always say that we're the shittiest species on planet earth. Hands down.

We're basically cancer.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Fair enough, but I would argue that natural selection requires a "natural" reasoning (an ecosystem balancing act) for why a certain trait causes it's extinction or another's dominance. Killing off animals because of their horns is entirely arbitrary towards the survival of humans which makes it much more akin to a natural disaster where a certain species might get destroyed because of an earthquake or meteor. It has nothing to do with the traits themselves, rather the significance people are assigning them (medicinal/spiritual use).

But it all does come down to whether you want to include or exclude human stupidity into/from scientific theory, haha.

Like I mentioned earlier, I think it comes down to how you phrase the question. Reproduction seems to be a precursor to what scientists refer to as "natural selection". So killing something by definition is not natural selection event. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect natural selection though. If white rhinos becomes extinct, then biodiversity goes down, and less overall diversity in the gene pool will alter the outcome of future natural selection events. So things will evolve differently as a result of not having white rhinos in the gene pool anymore. That's natural selection. Killing them wasn't.

 

[Dice//]

All in favour of hunting poachers say YAY.

I hate this need for authentic animal product. Go fucking faux and let animals live.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Like I mentioned earlier, I think it comes down to how you phrase the question. Reproduction seems to be a precursor to what scientists refer to as "natural selection". So killing something by definition is not natural selection event. That doesn't mean it doesn't affect natural selection though. If white rhinos becomes extinct, then biodiversity goes down, and less overall diversity in the gene pool will alter the outcome of future natural selection events. So things will evolve differently as a result of not having white rhinos in the gene pool anymore. That's natural selection. Killing them wasn't.

I agree with this.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Also, maybe this is controversial, but why do people think that the existence of white rhinos (or alternatively their extinction) is necessarily a good or bad thing?

From what I can tell, the argument for the preservation of species is because we want to keep bio-diversity at healthy levels for natural selection. This is a classic example of a mathematical optimization technique known as hill climbing. In short, you can only go state A to state B if state B is "better" than state A. Or put another way, you must avoid going from state A to state B if B is worse than A. On the surface this makes sense because you're never going backwards, only forwards. In the context of this discussion, we're saying we must always preserve species because more biodiversity is better for natural selection, so therefore it is undesirable to go from a world with white rhinos to a world without white rhinos.

But hill climbing doesn't always find the best solution. Or in the context of this discussion, having white rhinos might lead to the eventual introduction of traits or species that are undesirable for some reason or another and take millenia to correct, whereas not having them may have led to a different evolutionary course that after some amount of time was more desirable.

Over the long term (many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years) more diversity clearly seems better, but I'm not sold on the idea that we can say with certainty that saving white rhinos specifically is necessarily (or even likely to be) beneficial.

 

[The Technomancer]

Over the long term (many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years) more diversity clearly seems better, but I'm not sold on the idea that we can say with certainty that saving white rhinos specifically is necessarily (or even likely to be) beneficial.

My position is that, since we don't have evidence that killing them all is somehow beneficial, a general respect for life is enough of a reason for me to find their extinction abhorrent. There are no resources that we need that can only be acquired through direct hunting or other processes that lead to the extinction of the rhino. Hell, I feel the same way about most processes that we "do need". I enjoy the comforts of living in the developed world, but if I stumbled on an alternate reality where we hadn't begun massive campaigns of deforestation and terraforming that are large parts of our current production processes I wouldn't be in any hurry to interfere.

They're worth preserving because there's really no reason not to that outweighs the even marginal (depending on your judgement) value of a species existence

 

[CornBurrito]

Fair enough, but I would argue that natural selection requires a "natural" reasoning (an ecosystem balancing act) for why a certain trait causes it's extinction or another's dominance. Killing off animals because of their horns is entirely arbitrary towards the survival of humans which makes it much more akin to a natural disaster where a certain species might get destroyed because of an earthquake or meteor. It has nothing to do with the traits themselves, rather the significance people are assigning them (medicinal/spiritual use).

But it all does come down to whether you want to include or exclude human stupidity into/from scientific theory, haha.

Hmm, I can see that argument. Though can we say that the killing of these animals has zero impact on the survival of humans? Clearly the horns have no medical value, but the poachers who poach the horns receive what I assume is a large sum of currency. If they use this currency to raise kids and/or find a mate who will bear kids, then the hunting of the horns is indirectly increasing the chance that they can successfully propagate their genes.

Personally I'm not comfortable with "poaching the poachers" as a way to end poaching. Maybe I'm being too naive, but I'm making the shaky assumption that the poachers wouldn't be poaching if the economic conditions of the regions where poaching is practiced were better. Dunno how sound that assumption is though.

 

[ShamelessOpportunist]

Will I fire six shots, or only five?

 

[teacupcopter]

Also, maybe this is controversial, but why do people think that the existence of white rhinos (or alternatively their extinction) is necessarily a good or bad thing?

From what I can tell, the argument for the preservation of species is because we want to keep bio-diversity at healthy levels for natural selection. This is a classic example of a mathematical optimization technique known as hill climbing. In short, you can only go state A to state B if state B is "better" than state A. Or put another way, you must avoid going from state A to state B if B is worse than A. On the surface this makes sense because you're never going backwards, only forwards. In the context of this discussion, we're saying we must always preserve species because more biodiversity is better for natural selection, so therefore it is undesirable to go from a world with white rhinos to a world without white rhinos.

But hill climbing doesn't always find the best solution. Or in the context of this discussion, having white rhinos might lead to the eventual introduction of traits or species that are undesirable for some reason or another and take millenia to correct, whereas not having them may have led to a different evolutionary course that after some amount of time was more desirable.

Over the long term (many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years) more diversity clearly seems better, but I'm not sold on the idea that we can say with certainty that saving white rhinos specifically is necessarily (or even likely to be) beneficial.

I think also it's just that these Rhinos weren't bred out because they had bad or negative traits, we just flat killed them all. And it kinda sucks.

 

[Necromanti]

Like I mentioned earlier, I think it comes down to how you phrase the question. Reproduction seems to be a precursor to what scientists refer to as "natural selection". So killing something by definition is not natural selection event. So things will evolve differently as a result of not having white rhinos in the gene pool anymore. That's natural selection. Killing them wasn't.

Well, um...yes. What did you think evolution was? The definition of natural selection isn't that contentious.

 

[Two Words]

It's simple. The conditions we are speaking of (killing rhinos for horn "medicine"on the black market) aren't part of nature. We don't need these horns in any way, shape or form to live. They don't even improve life a little bit.



So now it's I did say it, I just didn't post any sources? Gotcha. I was also under the assumption mistakenly common sense would take it from there. Sometimes when the obvious is stated out loud, nothing else needs to be said. Again, a mistake on my part. Also, I'm not angry. Are you?

Our greed and stupidity is a part of nature as much as any other animal's greed and stupidity.

 

[CornBurrito]

Well, um...yes. What did you think evolution was? The definition of natural selection isn't that contentious.

Evolution is not the same as natural selection by the way. Natural selection is a force that causes evolution.

 

[Two Words]

Do you qualify the dinosaurs dying off from an asteroid impact and it leading to mammals becoming the dominant animal kingdom a result of natural selection? If so, what makes humans being assholes different?

 

[Necromanti]

Evolution is not the same as natural selection by the way. Natural selection is a force that causes evolution.

Along with mechanisms like genetic drift and gene flow, but people seem to be equating those processes with "natural selection".

 

[Phyranion]

Extinction is such an odd concept to think about. On the one hand, it's really sad to see an entire species disappear forever (especially when it's mankind's fault), on the other, it's completely natural.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Well, um...yes. What did you think evolution was? The definition of natural selection isn't that contentious.

If you read the links I posted earlier, you'll find that a poor choice of terminology and education about natural selection has created a fairly widespread misunderstanding that natural selection is the same as survival of the fittest. Can't speak for anyone else, but that was what was throwing me off.

 

[Two Words]

Extinction is such an odd concept to think about. On the one hand, it's really sad to see an entire species disappear forever (especially when it's mankind's fault), on the other, it's completely natural.

Why is a million deer being killed for sport less sad than a hundred endangered animals dying?

 

[Two Words]

If you read the links I posted earlier, you'll find that a poor choice of terminology and education about natural selection has created a fairly widespread misunderstanding that natural selection is the same as survival of the fittest. Can't speak for anyone else, but that was what was throwing me off.

Well "survival of the fittest" isn't a wrong idea, it's just an incomplete one. It's "survival of the most fit and to reproduce"

Survival is a part of natural selection. You gotta survive to reproduce.

 

[Necromanti]

Well "survival of the fittest" isn't a wrong idea, it's just an incomplete one. It's "survival of the most fit and to reproduce"

Survival is a part of natural selection. You gotta survive to reproduce.

"Survival of the fit enough" should have caught on instead.

If you read the links I posted earlier, you'll find that a poor choice of terminology and education about natural selection has created a fairly widespread misunderstanding that natural selection is the same as survival of the fittest. Can't speak for anyone else, but that was what was throwing me off.

Oh, trust me, I know how confused people are about evolution in general. If it makes you feel any better, even biology undergraduate and graduate students (and beyond) have a notoriously tenuous understanding of the subject. It's a universal problem.

 

[Nakho]

This thread is weird as fuck. Especially this post:

Tons of species went extinct before humans even existed. Blame whatever diety you think is behind the evolutionary process if you hate extinction so much. And humans are part of nature too so this is still natural selection.

I don't see how can CornBurrito say this isn't just plain apology of animal mistreatment. Hate to be that guy, but it is like saying "Don't hate a thief and murderer, blame the deity that created the urge in humans to kill for money". C'mon son, it is disingenious to bring a technicality like this in response to a clearly emotionally fueled post.

Not to say natural selection seen as an amoral concept to justify the behavior of supposedly rational humans led to some very dangerous and well-know ideologies last century. =/