Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

A Revolution in Evolution

1234579

Comments

  • #182
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    The placebo effect is due to the expectation of getting better and nothing to do with the actual treatment.

    Actually that's not true, some placebo treatments are more effective that others. This is because the expectation of getting better is effected by the patient views the treatment. Injections and acupuncture are more effective placebos that pills.

    And wearing a hat or a specific colour underwear can be effective as a placebo, assuming you can convince the patient to expect an effect.


  • #183
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    I am ignoring your attempts to turn this into another creationist thread, although sadly that may already have happened:(.

    Again you are ignoring most of my posts? Have you no shame? For the last damn time:
    I am not saying that you are arguing what a creationist argues, I am saying you are using their methods of argument.

    Why should anyone respond to your posts when we can see that after the inevitable disagreement that you will trawl their posts for any phrases, or even just words, to declare them as being off topic? And when we show how we aren't off topic at all, you just go ignoring their posts and repeating the basic question and again as if you have any credibility at all.


  • #184
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Actually that's not true, some placebo treatments are more effective that others. This is because the expectation of getting better is effected by the patient views the treatment. Injections and acupuncture are more effective placebos that pills.

    You post an article that supports what I am saying, and claim it contradicts me? Have you no shame?

    Yes, some placebos are more effective than others because of the heightened expectation of getting better, who is administering the placebo, and how they communicate its benefits. If people have a belief that acupuncture works, then they will likely see a benefit, whereas someone who thinks it is a load of bollix will likely not a see a benefit.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And wearing a hat or a specific colour underwear can be effective as a placebo, assuming you can convince the patient to expect an effect.

    Yes, but your statement was that it was the specific change that caused the placebo effect, which is incorrect. It is not the change, it is the expectation that the change will do something. This is most clearly seen in the example I gave you earlier, where placebos administered by an empathetic doctor are more effective than those administered by a hurried abrupt doctor.


  • #185
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why should anyone respond to your posts when we can see that after the inevitable disagreement that you will trawl their posts for any phrases, or even just words, to declare them as being off topic? And when we show how we aren't off topic at all, you just go ignoring their posts and repeating the basic question and again as if you have any credibility at all.


    You are the one ignoring posts. If you are interested in the thread topic, then respond to post #178. Discussion works in two directions, I have summarized my claims in post #178, either agree with it, disagree with it and say why, or continue to ignore it. It's entirely up to you.


  • #186
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    An oversimplification of the truth actually. Sometimes harmful or even neutral changes can be selected and disseminate in a population too. "Survival of the fittest" and other common media phrases have led lay people to the assumption only advantageous traits are selected for.

    "Survival of the fittest" was used by Darwin in later editions of "On the Origin of Species". Spencer was the first to use it, but both he and Darwin used it as a metaphor for natural selection. It is misunderstood by many due to their confusion with the common usage meaning of "fitness", when the correct scientific meaning in the context of evolution is fitness relative to their environment, as in better adapted for the local environment.

    Evolution proceeds because of inherited traits that increase fitness in a local environment. Why do some species stay virtually unchanged for millions of years? Because there is no selection pressure on them to evolve. However, start wiping out a specific strain of bacteria with antibiotics and they will evolve with startling speed. That to me is the most convincing bit of evidence for adaptive mutation, the rate at which mutation occurs under environmental stress, and the specific loci on the genome it occurs on.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    From my studies of all the arguments and papers over the years my feeling is they are all right and wrong. I think EVERY level is subject to selection. Gene selection, phenotype selection, sexual selection, group selection on up to even the inter dependencies of Ecosystem selection.

    In my opinion it is all driven by phenotype selection. Evolutionary change is due to changing environment, whether caused by natural disasters, organisms migrating, entry of new predators, etc. Organisms that stay in an unchanging environment have no selection pressure. Speciation occurs because one population of a species is isolated from another, in a different environment, and evolves different traits to survive. Species confronted with new environmental pressure either survive (adapt) or die (go extinct).
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Humans love when science reduces to one simple set of rules that we can learn and subscribe to and many people would love Evolution to be a simple set of selections at a single level. I remain totally unconvinced of that however and see horizontal and vertical selection effects at every level.

    This is Shapiro's first very convincing point, evolution is far too complex to reduce it to a simple equation; RM/NS. In every discipline of science, the more we try and reduce nature to simple equations, the more we end up with egg on our face. Nature may be incomprehensible to us, so making firm assumptions about it can be foolish.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    While not convinced of Epigenetics myself, I have read enough papers on the subject to at least find it compelling and interesting. I feel a lot of what scientists are mistaking as "epigenetics" will turn out to be the simple reactivation of dormant pathways through the reintroduction of inputs that have become absent over time. Which will give us the IMPRESSION that we subjected a test population to a stimulus and then their off spring appeared to inherit traits on their basis.

    No, because epigenetics is a completely new mechanism that we did not understand at all up to recently, or even accept as possible in terms of inheritance. It is an alternative mechanism to account for inherited gene expression, the ability to turn genes on or off, or up and down, during development. Where is the evidence for "dormant pathways"? that's a claim I had not heard before.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So when you talk of an environment altering to "stress" an organism and its phenotype morphs and this morph passes on to the off spring.... I think we should be very very careful to THEN check whether this was not really a morph or adaption at all... but the mere reactivation of gene pathways, via environmental changes, that had otherwise become unused.

    I understand that point and it is a good one. The difference is we now have the tools to see exactly what is going on in the genome and the epigenome. Since the 1990s there is an absolute explosion of data that allows us tell exactly what is happening and where. Epigenetic mechanisms are now well understood and differentiated from gene expression due to changes in DNA sequence.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But there are also areas of Evolution I simply can not make sense of without taking a genes eye view of selection and evolution so I would not come as close as you to rubbishing the idea of gene selection at all. Quite the opposite.

    I am not rubbishing the gene centric view, I just think it is most likely wrong given the current evidence, and that evolution is better understood in terms of organisms actively adapting to changing environments, rather than driven by random events in their genomes. There is ample evidence to support both views, but the more recent evidence from adaptive mutation studies and epigenetics favors the former.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Because as many of your posts demonstrate all too clearly... our mind can run away with the linguistics we use and lead us to all kinds of nonsense conclusions such as suggesting the process to be exhibiting intelligence or intention or even communication.

    There's that nonsense word again, tsk, tsk. Nobody, least of all I, is claiming that the process itself i.e. evolution, has intention or intelligence. The process of evolution is natural selection, just like the process of dog breeding is artificial selection. I am claiming that all living organisms have a basic level of purpose and intelligence. To restate a prior point, I am not referring here to human level intelligence, but to primitive or basic level intelligence that emerges as life emerges. All characteristics that make us human have to have emerged from more basic versions in earlier species.

    You can disagree with this, but it is not nonsense as there is plenty evidence to support it.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You post an article that supports what I am saying, and claim it contradicts me? Have you no shame?

    Except that it doesnt support what you are saying. Your claim was very clearly that the placebo effect has "nothing to do with the actual treatment".

    Yet evidence is given to you that the effect of placebo varies in relation to the type of treatment administered.

    So it DIRECTLY contradicts your assertion. And you claim otherwise. It is clear to me who lacks the shame in this equation.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    You are the one ignoring posts.

    A bigger outright lie I have not yet seen from you. You are openly ignoring many of the posts on this thread. While the user you are replying to has replied to just about every one of yours.


  • #188
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Oh look, you appear to have forgotten that you are meant to have me on ignore when you do not actually have me on ignore.

    Its like Jackass/Philologos all over again who used to lie that he had me on ignore over and over. But he used to often forget and he would "accidentally" reply to some of my posts or send me PMs.

    It used to be funny. He would even post JPEGS of his ignore list with me on it, then less than 12 hours later he would reply directly to my posts before claiming once again I am actually on ignore.

    Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet forums states however that the likelihood of a user replying to something on a forum increases in proportion to the number of times that user claims they will not do so.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    "Survival of the fittest" was used by Darwin

    A history lesson is not required nor relevant. It is a media influenced term that confuses the lay man who reads too much into it. My point was, and remains, simply that it is an oversimplication of evolution to suggest that traits that confer an advantage are the only thing selected for in Evolution. There is a lot lot lot more to it than that.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    In my opinion it is all driven by phenotype selection.

    And opinion appears to be all it is. It certainly does not appear to be grounded in any evidence you have thus far presented. Selective pressures and effects happen in different ways and of different types at all levels. Even the lay man can not come out of reading The Selfish Gene for example without realizing there are whole swaths of evolution that do not make sense without taking a genes eye view of things. For example genes that get themselves selected and perpetuated through innumerable generations by making themselves essentially "invisible" to selection. Their reproductive success makes little sense in the light of your "phenotype only" level of selection.

    I simply think it is a fools game to believe that something as complex as evolution can be "all driven" by any one thing. We would like it to be to make it a simple set of rules and effects we can learn off in order to tell ourselves we "understand" the subject. But nothing I have seen suggests anything of the sort is true. Much less from you.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    There's that nonsense word again, tsk, tsk. Nobody, least of all I, is claiming that the process itself i.e. evolution, has intention or intelligence.

    I call a spade a spade. If you do not like the words used: Build a bridge.

    As was asked in one of the posts you pretended to be ignoring, it is not clear what your point or intention even is then. It was you who posted an arbitrary definition of intelligence. In yet another of the posts you pretended to be ignoring I went through every aspect of that definition and showed how it did not apply.

    So why post such a definition at all if not to apply it or discuss it? Why discuss intelligence in relation to evolution if you have not a shred of belief it exhibits any. You appear at this point to be trying to go to the shop by back pedaling the whole way and achieving nothing but leaving observers around you confused as to where your intended destination actually is.

    You _appear_ to be taking exception to the suggestion that evolution is a mindless process while also distancing yourself from any suggestion it is an intelligent one. So once again: What IS your actual point here?

    Quite literally the only point of any truth and use I can extract from the entirety of your postulations on this thread is "Evolution, and the factors that drive and fuel evolution, as more complex than people 100 or so years ago thought". But if _that_ is your entire point here then we have spent 13 pages in an attempt to state the blatantly obvious.


  • #189
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Except that it doesnt support what you are saying. Your claim was very clearly that the placebo effect has "nothing to do with the actual treatment".

    Yet evidence is given to you that the effect of placebo varies in relation to the type of treatment administered.

    So it DIRECTLY contradicts your assertion. And you claim otherwise. It is clear to me who lacks the shame in this equation.

    You are simply reading the wiki article posted by Hamill incorrectly and coming to the wrong conclusion, as he is. The placebo effect is due to the expectation of the patient, including the expectation or belief the patient associates with the specific treatment. It varies by treatment due to the patient's belief as to the efficiency of the treatment. Someone for example who is convinced that acupuncture works will see a much bigger effect than someone who thinks it is bs.

    I also said by the way that the placebo effect is not fully understood. However, everything I have read says that it is entirely due to the state of mind of the patient, how they view the treatment, and the manner in which the treatment is offered. The significant evidence to support this is if two groups are administered a placebo and one is told it will help, the other told it will make their condition worse. The second group feel worse, something called the nocebo effect.

    So yes, it does vary by treatment, but only because of how the patient views the treatment, so we are back to a mental state causing a physiological effect.


  • #190
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Oh look, you appear to have forgotten that you are meant to have me on ignore when you do not actually have me on ignore.

    I absolved you, take it in the spirit it was intended;). However, you will be going back on ignore permanently if you call me a liar again. I have clearly stated that I will not get dragged into a creationist argument. Hammill has not uttered a single word related to the thread topic, which is recent advances in evolutionary theory.

    I will respond to the rest of your post later.


  • #191
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You are simply reading the wiki article posted by Hamill incorrectly

    False. My comment has nothing to do with the article, but my studies of epidemiology and placebo. The effectiveness of placebo very much changes with regards the type of placebo administered. Which directly contradicts your claim of placebo effect has "nothing to do with the actual treatment".

    The "actual treatment" influences the placebo effect greatly. What CAUSES that variation, such as (but by no means limited to) patient expectation and other factors, is the means by which that occurs, but still the fact remains that what the actual treatment is... is very relevant.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    So yes, it does vary by treatment

    Great. So we have corrected / updated your original false statement to a newer more accurate one. Isnt discourse great when you are not pretending to be ignoring it and falsely accusing others of ignoring it?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I absolved you, take it in the spirit it was intended;). However, you will be going back on ignore permanently if you call me a liar again.

    Which I never did. So it seems you will be pretending to put me on ignore rather arbitrarily or on a whim. Likely when I, as I did on that other thread, make bits of a paper you thought so precious.

    However if I see a claim that is false, I will correct it. If I see a claim that appears not to match the reality I observe, I will point that out. If you want to take offence at those things and suggest I am calling you a liar, then best just put me on "pretend ignore" again right now... because I am not about to change for you and will be continuing with business as usual here.

    However given I respond to posts on forums for a wider audience, your having me on pretend ignore or not is entirely irrelevant to me. My replies to your posts will remain entirely unchanged or unaffected.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which I never did.

    "A bigger outright lie I have not seen from you" is now translated to mean what exactly?


  • #193
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    "A bigger outright lie I have not seen from you" is now translated to mean what exactly?

    A temporal error on your part.

    I was referring to your initial accusation on this thread when you were pretending to have me on ignore, and your relevant reference to another thread that is not this one. By "I never did" I am referring to the first time you suggested I called you a "liar".

    Your "absolution" above is therefore not required, nor sought.


  • #194
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,473 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ Folks, please drop the accusations of dishonesty.

    Thanking youze.


  • #195
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    False. My comment has nothing to do with the article, but my studies of epidemiology and placebo.

    Then I suggest you go back and study some more. The placebo "effect" is an effect, and an effect is a consequence of a cause. The level of the "effect" is entirely due to the expectations of the patient, which is conditioned by either their existing view of the treatment, and/or how the efficacy of the treatment is presented to them. This is seen over and over again in studies, where the association with the treatment made by the patient is the key factor in the level of relief the patient feels. Hamill and yourself are both confusing the effect itself with the level of the effect, the former is qualitative, the later is quantitative.

    The "placebo effect" itself has nothing to do with the treatment, as by definition a placebo has no known efficacy, it is entirely due to the expectation of the patient, conditioned by their view of the specific treatment. Yes, it is a subtle point, but one you appear to be spectacularly missing.

    The clearest example is in acupuncture studies. If someone is given sham acupuncture treatment where the skin is not broken, they may experience a placebo effect. If they are given "proper" treatment where the skin is broken and they feel a pinprick, the effect is likely to be more pronounced. This is clearly because their expectation of acupuncture is to feel a pinprick.


  • #196
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Then I suggest you go back and study some more.

    Pocket your suggestions. Just because I disagree with you does not in any way mean I lack knowledge of the subject.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    which is conditioned by either their existing view of the treatment, and/or how the efficacy of the treatment is presented to them.

    Again: Your original comment was that it has nothing to do with the treatment. We have established now that the effect differs if the treatment differs. Therefore the original comment that it has nothing to do with the treatment is false.

    WHY different treatments have differing effects is a different discussion.

    It appears we are doing nothing more that equivocating over what we mean by "to do with the treatment". All I am saying, and Mark will have to speak for himself, is if that the effect of placebo varies with respect to the placebo treatment chosen... then saying it has "nothing to do with the treatment" is clearly false.

    Discussion on that particular aspect of the thread is to my mind therefore complete.

    My as yet open question as to what your actual point is on the thread, asked in not one, but two and possibly three of my posts, remains to be addressed. As I said already you appear to be taking exception to the idea that Evolution is a mindless process.... while also distancing yourself from any suggestion it is an intelligent process.... while also seemingly posting definition of intelligence yourself..... so what your point is, or where you are going with this.... remains entirely opaque to me and... I am starting to suspect.... to you.


  • #197
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    A history lesson is not required nor relevant. It is a media influenced term that confuses the lay man who reads too much into it. My point was, and remains, simply that it is an oversimplication of evolution to suggest that traits that confer an advantage are the only thing selected for in Evolution. There is a lot lot lot more to it than that.

    It was a not a history lesson. "Survival of the fittest" is actually an excellent metaphor for natural selection when properly understood. As to the rest of this comment, obviously the whole phenotype is selected, with positive and negative survival and reproductive traits, but the only thing of significance to "evolution" are the traits that confer an advantage. If a species of fish for example find themselves on dry land due to a natural disaster, those that evolve any mechanism to move around their habitat will survive and reproduce. Those that develop primitive legs will survive better, and on and on.


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And opinion appears to be all it is. It certainly does not appear to be grounded in any evidence you have thus far presented. Selective pressures and effects happen in different ways and of different types at all levels. Even the lay man can not come out of reading The Selfish Gene for example without realizing there are whole swaths of evolution that do not make sense without taking a genes eye view of things. For example genes that get themselves selected and perpetuated through innumerable generations by making themselves essentially "invisible" to selection. Their reproductive success makes little sense in the light of your "phenotype only" level of selection.

    The only thing that provides selection pressure is the environment. When the environment changes for whatever reason, the individual organism either adapts to it or dies, and the species either adapts to it or goes extinct. "Genes that get themselves selected" suggests you are taking Dawkins' metaphor literally, which is not even what he intended. Genes don't have goals remember, the gene centric view is that genes produce phenotypes as if they were selfish. This is where I part company with Dawkins, even though his metaphor is a good introductory concept for lay people and his popular science writing overall is of a very high standard, although dated. Organisms produce phenotypes in response to changing environments, and utilize their genes to accomplish this by various gene expression mechanisms.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I simply think it is a fools game to believe that something as complex as evolution can be "all driven" by any one thing. We would like it to be to make it a simple set of rules and effects we can learn off in order to tell ourselves we "understand" the subject. But nothing I have seen suggests anything of the sort is true. Much less from you.

    Nowhere am I suggesting that evolution is due to "one thing", in fact that's ironic given from the first post I have emphasized the complexity of the underlying cellular mechanisms that give rise to variation. Evolution is however ultimately driven by one thing, how well the organism's phenotype is equipped to survive and reproduce in its environment. That's the whole basis of natural selection, and indeed what natural selection means. This discussion is focused on the cellular mechanisms that give rise to variations or traits that are selected.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    It was you who posted an arbitrary definition of intelligence. In yet another of the posts you pretended to be ignoring I went through every aspect of that definition and showed how it did not apply.

    Nope. I posted a definition of intelligence that is used by those studying the emergence of intelligence in living organisms. To do this one must break down the term into its various attributes, and then examine whether there is evidence for these attributes in lower level organisms. I will get back to your earlier post on cellular intelligence later as I have not read it (because you were on ignore, remember), and also clarify what you are questioning in the last part of your post. [/QUOTE]


  • #198
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Therefore the original comment that it has nothing to do with the treatment is false.

    Sorry, you are just plain wrong and cannot admit it.

    The placebo effect has nothing to do with the treatment because a placebo by definition has no physiological efficacy. Indeed, placebos are deliberately chosen in clinical trials based on having no efficacy (unless the clinical trial is done in a fraudulent manner, something that unfortunately happens, like giving sugar pills to diabetics).

    The placebo effect is simply due to the patient's mental state (optimism for example rather than pessimism about their outcome). An expectation of relief results in activation of brain regions that release endorphins. The level of endorphins released is related directly to how strong the belief is in the treatment. Its really quite simple.


  • #199
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    My as yet open question as to what your actual point is on the thread, asked in not one, but two and possibly three of my posts, remains to be addressed. As I said already you appear to be taking exception to the idea that Evolution is a mindless process.... while also distancing yourself from any suggestion it is an intelligent process.... while also seemingly posting definition of intelligence yourself..... so what your point is, or where you are going with this.... remains entirely opaque to me and... I am starting to suspect.... to you.

    I will come back to this later, but the point of the thread is to discuss the various cellular mechanisms that result in variation, and whether these mechanisms are "random" or adaptive.


  • #200
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You post an article that supports what I am saying, and claim it contradicts me? Have you no shame?

    The article I linked to specifically says that certain placebo treatments (injections, acupuncture) are more effective than others (pills) and you think that agrees with you statement "The placebo effect is due to the expectation of getting better and nothing to do with the actual treatment."
    Do you know what "agree" means?
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Yes, but your statement was that it was the specific change that caused the placebo effect, which is incorrect.

    I said it was a specific change, not the specific change, and I'm right. If someone makes a specific change to treat something, then that act will have an effect because of expectations.


  • #201
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,858 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    nagirrac wrote: »
    You are the one ignoring posts. If you are interested in the thread topic, then respond to post #178. Discussion works in two directions, I have summarized my claims in post #178, either agree with it, disagree with it and say why, or continue to ignore it. It's entirely up to you.

    Why would I start discussing #178 with you, supposedly the basic theme of the thread from the start when you have ignored 90% of my posts? Most of your posts to me since after the second page have taken one or two sentences from my multiple paragraph long posts (sometimes just words) and ignored all else. Even from post #162, where I responded to each of your specific accusations of where I was going off topic, you responded to one line, with a "well so are you" type response, ignore the rest and try and drag us back to the start as if our path won't just repeat itself.

    Seriously, nagirrac, exactly what type of credibility do you think you have here? It is not discussion to declare people who disagree with you "off-topic" and ignore their disagreements.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The article I linked to specifically says that certain placebo treatments (injections, acupuncture) are more effective than others (pills) and you think that agrees with you statement "The placebo effect is due to the expectation of getting better and nothing to do with the actual treatment." Do you know what "agree" means?

    Yes, I know what agree means, it's what both nozz and yourself are doing slowly but surely as you realize what I am saying is correct. If you want to understand the placebo effect more fully, you will have to go beyond the level of a wiki article and look at the various studies. For every study that says one placebo is more effective than another, there is one that says the opposite, and they vary by demographic. Many placebo studies are conflicting, which is what you expect when an effect is entirely due to perception and expectation. The actual treatment does nothing, which is my point.

    Whether the placebo effect is seen at all or to what extent it is seen varies by individual. It depends entirely on the expectation of the individual which is conditioned by their perception of the treatment used, and the manner in which it is administered. One person may see a stronger effect from a large pill and another person a stronger effect from a small pill, not because the pills are large or small but because they have the perception that a large or small pill is a more effective medicine. The bigger picture is that neither pill do anything in themselves, the causality is entirely a mental one. The same is true in acupuncture studies, studies in Asia show acupuncture more likely to cause the effect, studies in the West injections more likely, take your pick.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I said it was a specific change, not the specific change, and I'm right. If someone makes a specific change to treat something, then that act will have an effect because of expectations.

    You are getting there. It is the expectation, period. If they are conditioned (by their doctor for example) to expect a benefit, they are likely to feel better. The opposite is also demonstrated to be the case, if they are told something will make them feel worse, they are likely to feel worse (the nocebo effect).


  • #203
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    It was a not a history lesson. "Survival of the fittest" is actually an excellent metaphor for natural selection when properly understood.

    Anything "when properly understood" can be a good description. My comment is based on a measure of how easily the phrase is NOT understood by people lay to the subject like yourself. This is not uncommon in science such as the phrase "Big Bang" which is also a great phrase IF you understand it but the number of people who read the phrase and mightily MISunderstand it is a measure of how poor a phrase it is. "Survival of the fittest" is another such phrase. IF you properly understand it then you can see what the phrase means, but alas many do not understand it and it leads to much misunderstanding.

    Alas as a species we have an unending need to distil whole swaths of science down into one liners and slogans that we feel we can understand and more often than not I find myself on science forums explaining to lay people what such slogans do NOT actually mean.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    As to the rest of this comment, obviously the whole phenotype is selected, with positive and negative survival and reproductive traits, but the only thing of significance to "evolution" are the traits that confer an advantage.

    Which, as I keep trying to school you on, is false. Traits that are neutral for example can also get selected. Traits that are harmful can too. It depends on many factors and it is an over simplification to suggest that only traits conferring an advantage are significant.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If a species of fish for example find themselves on dry land due to a natural disaster, those that evolve any mechanism to move around their habitat will survive and reproduce. Those that develop primitive legs will survive better, and on and on.

    This is serious nonsense from you right here. A natural disaster is a sudden event. It propels creatures, like fish in your example, into situations that likely kill them instantly. A species of fish thrown suddenly by natural disaster onto dry land will flop about on the spot for a minute or two, and die.

    The idea a sudden natural disaster can propel an entire species into a new habitat and as they flounder about on land a small % ofthem will suddenly develop legs might get up and survive and start walking about is fantastical nonsense. Where do you get this stuff? Any species who finds themselves suddenly in a terminal environment, will be terminated. Simple as. They do not sprout gills and legs and happily wander on thinking "Phew that was close".
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The only thing that provides selection pressure is the environment.

    Another egregious layman error here. This is simply not true either. Selection pressures come from all kinds of things, not just environment. Take sexual selection for example... a powerful influence on selection pressure that simply has nothing to do with environment at all. You really have a habit of asserting facts on a subject it is clear you have limited knowledge about.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Genes don't have goals remember

    Nor has anything I have written made that implication, nor does it require that presupposition. Nor am I the one who has been meaninglessly and goallessly bringing things like goals and intelligence and so forth into the conversation. You have.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Sorry, you are just plain wrong and cannot admit it.

    I am wrong often and I revel in admitting it. To be wrong is a wonderful thing because you delete false knowledge and gain new knowledge all in one move. However you clearly said it has nothing to do with the treatment. And given the effects vary with the treatment the original comment was wrong. Or at least incomplete and misleading. You were called on it. By two people. You clarified and edited the comment. It is now more accurate. Get over it and move on.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I will come back to this later, but the point of the thread is to discuss the various cellular mechanisms that result in variation, and whether these mechanisms are "random" or adaptive.

    All of which has been dealt with thoroughly. There is no "revolution" here. The idea of the evolution OF evolvability is out there, and being studied. How life "adapts" and what illusions that adaption can give off is clear too. Why you need to bring things like "intelligence" into this at all is still opaque to me and... as I said.... I suspect to you too.


  • #204
    pauldla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,248 ✭✭✭pauldla


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

    ...

    I am wrong often and I revel in admitting it. To be wrong is a wonderful thing because you delete false knowledge and gain new knowledge all in one move. However you clearly said it has nothing to do with the treatment. And given the effects vary with the treatment the original comment was wrong. Or at least incomplete and misleading. You were called on it. By two people. You clarified and edited the comment. It is now more accurate. Get over it and move on.

    ...

    Liking the above (to such an extent that I'm putting -ing on a stative verb, oh the horror of it all), especially for the highlighted text. Good on you, nozz.

    Apologies for the interruption, we now return to the Revolution in Evolution.


  • #205
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    My comment is based on a measure of how easily the phrase is NOT understood by people lay to the subject like yourself.

    What an arrogant and asinine statement. Having read your inputs on this and other threads on the subject of evolution, I can say with some confidence your "lay" understanding of the subject is well below mine, and orders of magnitude below the most knowledgeable posters.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Which, as I keep trying to school you on, is false. Traits that are neutral for example can also get selected. Traits that are harmful can too. It depends on many factors and it is an over simplification to suggest that only traits conferring an advantage are significant.

    If I need schooling, and I freely admit I do on numerous subjects on an ongoing basis, then I turn to sources I can learn from, rather than internet posters who think they know more than they do, such as yourself. You clearly don't understand evolution at all if you make the above claim, as you clearly don't understand natural selection and differential reproduction.
    There are other selection mechanisms, but natural selection is by far the most significant in evolution. The most fundamental aspect of natural selection is that traits that confer a reproductive advantage (in terms of total lifetime reproduction), and are heritable, become dominant in a population over many generations. Instead of Dawkins, I would recommend Evolution 101 as a jumping off point:

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

    The problem with many people who only read Dawkins is they get this metaphor ridden view of the subject that can totally distort the science. He is an excellent writer for those with a good foundation, but in terms of scientists who write well on evolution, without feeling the need to swing an atheist axe at the same time, I would recommend Mayr's "What Evolution Is", "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin, "Wonderful Life" by Steven Jay Gould, and all Sean B. Carrol's books to get up to date on Evo-Devo.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    This is serious nonsense from you right here. A natural disaster is a sudden event. It propels creatures, like fish in your example, into situations that likely kill them instantly. A species of fish thrown suddenly by natural disaster onto dry land will flop about on the spot for a minute or two, and die.

    If I had known the level of your understanding of the topic, I would have dumbed it down even further. My point was clearly a metaphor for how novel and beneficial features evolve in individual species, adaptive to their changing environment, but this of course was lost on you. Read the first chapter of Shubin's excellent book to see this explained properly to you.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Another egregious layman error here. This is simply not true either. Selection pressures come from all kinds of things, not just environment. Take sexual selection for example... a powerful influence on selection pressure that simply has nothing to do with environment at all. You really have a habit of asserting facts on a subject it is clear you have limited knowledge about.

    Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection, but natural selection nonetheless. This is where the term "fitness" is very useful. Fitness combines all the things that matter in terms of natural selection i.e. survival, finding a mate, and reproduction. The fittest individual is the one best equipped, in its local environment, to survive, find a mate, and reproduce. Fitness depends entirely on the environment the organism is, including the competition for mates.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    All of which has been dealt with thoroughly. There is no "revolution" here. The idea of the evolution OF evolvability is out there, and being studied. How life "adapts" and what illusions that adaption can give off is clear too. Why you need to bring things like "intelligence" into this at all is still opaque to me and... as I said.... I suspect to you too.

    To be honest, I am not sure there is much point discussing this with you further given your level of understanding of the topic. Evolution is a broad and complex field and it is easy to get bogged down. The specific topics I am discussing in this thread are the intercellular mechanisms that give rise to variations between individuals, and whether these mechanisms are "random" or adaptive. This has nothing to do with the higher level mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection, which are clearly adaptive. I am assuming natural selection works as it is conventionally understood for this discussion. However, this distinction is also probably lost on you.


  • #206
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    To be wrong is a wonderful thing because you delete false knowledge and gain new knowledge all in one move.

    You're welcome. Hopefully you now understand the placebo effect better because of our discussion. Both Hamill and yourself, in your respective haste, misunderstood the "meaning" of my sentence (as you say yourself, a common mistake for those lay to the subject). The "effect" seen in the placebo effect cannot come from the treatment, period, unless you are a believer in the efficacy of acupuncture, homeopathy, etc. which I am pretty sure you are not. The "effect" comes solely from the perception and expectation of the patient.


  • #207
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I'm just quoting this because it reads me like you guys have to disagree with each other and pull punches.
    Which, as I keep trying to school you on, is false. Traits that are neutral for example can also get selected. Traits that are harmful can too. It depends on many factors and it is an over simplification to suggest that only traits conferring an advantage are significant.

    Both of you used labels for good/bad differently. One of you was using advantage when solely referring to likelihood to reproduce. The other was using it refer to having over all quality benefits for an organism. So instead of having a spat over apparent intellect try talking on the same wavelength first. Be explicit about what you mean by your terminology. There and be patient when someone mixes up the concepts!


  • #208
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    nagirrac wrote: »
    What an arrogant and asinine statement.

    It is a factual statement. We often distill swaths of science down into one liner titles or slogans like "Big Bang" and "Survival of the fittest". And those titles and slogans lead to great misunderstandings in communication between the lay man and the scientific classes.

    You point out that if you know what the phrases and titles mean that they are great phrases and titles. That is true, but is missing my point entirely.

    It is the lay people who do not know what such phrases mean that are misled by them.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    I can say with some confidence your "lay" understanding of the subject is well below mine, and orders of magnitude below the most knowledgeable posters.

    Your own confidence in your own statements is a support case of one I am afraid. You constantly try to construe by disagreements with you, and my corrections of your errors, as having a lack of understanding of the subject. Once again: Disagreeing with your statements is not the same as failing to understand them, much as you might want it to be so.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    You clearly don't understand evolution at all if you make the above claim

    Quite the opposite. It is because I understand it that I am disagreeing with the basic errors you are making. You are correct in your slight back pedal of saying that natural selection is by far the MOST significant aspect of Evolution yes. But you have also indicated you think it is solely about selecting for traits that are advantageous. When in fact many traits that are neutral can be selected for other reasons.

    In fact it even depends on what one means by "advantageous" as quite often a less advantageous trait can confer better over all fitness to an organism. Which is what Jernal is touching on above. Sometime being worse at something can actually confer a better over all effect on an organism than being best at it.

    You also suggested that environment is the only factor. Your exact words being "The only thing that provides selection pressure is the environment.". Yet with things like sexual selection this is patently false.

    So no I do not think with the number of errors you are making that you get to declare other people fail to understand the topic. It is a topic I understand greatly and I am offering you my knowledge on the subject, despite the attitude you display when corrected on even the slightest error. As I said above, being wrong is a good thing, yet you act like it is a personal affront and a challenge on your man hood every time you are corrected by me.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    If I had known the level of your understanding of the topic, I would have dumbed it down even further.

    Your comment was fantastical nonsense. Do not ascribe that to my level of understanding of the subject. It was nonsense independent of whether I had read it or not.

    Adaption to changes in environment are incremental over time. The idea that adaption occurs in relation to sudden natural disasters such as sprouting legs is egregious nonsense. If, as you said, fish suddenly found themselves on dry land, they would simply die.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection, but natural selection nonetheless.

    I am aware of what it is thanks. But I am also aware of what it is NOT. Which is an environment issue. Your claim was "The only thing that provides selection pressure is the environment.". And the simply fact that sexual selection is a selection pressure simply shows your statement to be false. Entirely. So no, fitness to reproduce does not depend "entirely" on the "environment" as you assert.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    You're welcome.

    I do not recall offering any thanks? As I said I enjoy being wrong when it happens. But since it has not happened in this case I am not sure what I am "welcome" for. Once again your claim was that it had nothing to do with the treatment. But since the efficacy does change with the treatment, your statement was wrong. However you since updated and corrected the statement after we called you on it, to one that I now agree with (though I can not speak for mark) so I am not sure why it is still an issue?


  • #209
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Jernal wrote: »
    I'm just quoting this because it reads me like you guys have to disagree with each other and pull punches.

    Pulling punches?


  • #210
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Pulling punches?

    Academic penis wielding then if you prefer.
    Insinuations of lay understanding, not being researchers etc.
    The argument doesn't care if you win the Nobel prize or cure Aids. All it cares about is your argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    An attempt to go back on topic would be nice so this deserves a separate post following my last.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The specific topics I am discussing in this thread are the intercellular mechanisms that give rise to variations between individuals, and whether these mechanisms are "random" or adaptive.

    It is still unclear at this point why you brought intelligence, or any discussion of intelligence, into the topic. You gave a long arbitrary definition of intelligence but no aspect of evolution seems to match that definition in any way at all. Nor have you attempted to make a link. So for the 4th or 5th time I much express curiosity as to what your aim or goal or point was there. It is still entirely opaque.

    What you even mean by "adaptive" is not entirely clear despite pages of posts on the matter. Are you speaking about what many writers call the Evolution of Evolovability? Are you speaking about the strong illusion of adaption that the mechanisms of evolution can give? Or are you talking about something else along the lines of foresight which your introduction of "intelligence" into the discussion would seem to suggest.

    And in the light of the above two paragraphs it is not even clear what you think the "revolution" is here. As I said all I can glean from your posts is an acknowledgement of the fact that our understanding of the factors and pressures involved in evolution have grown over time and we have learned it is not all "as simple as that". Great stuff, but is this not merely stating the obvious?


Advertisement