This Is An Order

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. Lets compare ourselves to our anscetors 50,000 years ago. Do our anscestors and us having the following in common: 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, a nose, a mouth, walk upright, opposable thumbs, etc, etc, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of mutations in which these qualities aren't present. People are sometimes born with two heads for God's sake.

[ QUOTE ]
If you saw our ancestors from 50,000 years ago who they look similar enough to us that you would recognize them as human or of human-like qualities?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

[ QUOTE ]
That is 50,000 years and the changes have been gradual. The overall model is pretty static. If what I am saying is untrue, why do we differ so little from our anscestors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, from 50,000 years ago? That's maybe 2,500 generations. That's nothing. What standard of "static" and "gradual" are you using? Of course humans are unlikely to evolve dramatically during one generation, if that's what you're getting at. Even over only 2,500 generations, I'd imagine there's some difference.

But that's not what I was talking about, anyhow. Changes in environment have had clearly observable effects in a very short number of generations in many species. I'd bet that if you let me selectively breed humans, I could create an interesting race before the end of my life. And dogs have come a long way since they were domesticated, again relatively recently. In fact, every time the environment changes dramatically, the entire ecosystems rapidly restructure themselves. Some species do stay the same, but other species die out and others adapt to the new conditions.

And while evolution itself (at least in complex organisms) is a relatively "slow" process (relative to, say, doing the dishes), the changes in selective pressures can happen very quickly. Many, many species go extinct because they don't change fast enough to keep up with the new set of conditions.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, evolution cannot explain even the amount of change over the last 50,000 years because even those minor changes are too rapid for genetic mutation. To understand the amount of change one needs to use sexual selection instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is sexual selection not evolution?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
If what I am saying is untrue, why do we differ so little from our anscestors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seeing as we have no idea of how different our livers, kidneys, brains and other organs of which i don't believe we have any remains, not to mention the behavior of humans can have changed mightily.
Of course even if they were the same saying that for one 50,000 year stretch one species didn't change much doesn't mean that the overall mechanism for millions of species for millions of years is static.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, evolution cannot explain even the amount of change over the last 50,000 years because even those minor changes are too rapid for genetic mutation. To understand the amount of change one needs to use sexual selection instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Sexual selection is a mechanism for evolution.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The model is pretty static and evolution dictates this as rapid mutation is not good. Whatever the timeframe, there is an optimal strategy and those who execute that strategy win. You have said nothing that disputes this.

[/ QUOTE ] There is a tremendous, humbling amount of sheer luck involved in the survival of most species. Take a moment to look up Stephen Jay Gould's book, for a primer on that.

Most of the time, the "optimal strategy" you are so focused on, becomes clear only in hindsight.

Mickey Brausch

[chaosuk]

There is a whole body of work that contradicts your assertions - it's been around for over 30 years.

[Riddick]

The Prisoners Dilemma simply assumes its conclusion (as well as its premises.)

What can be so imporant about a concocted, unrealistic scenario that then assumes its conclusion?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I ordered a
Prisonner's Dilemma by Poundstone
and
Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction
a few days ago, I'm 17 years old and this stuff really interests me.

[/ QUOTE ]

While not specifically addressing the PD, this quick read will expose it for what it is: Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
While not specifically addressing the PD, this quick read will expose it for what it is: Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics

[/ QUOTE ]

Link's busted, use this one: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

[chaosuk]

[ QUOTE ]
[The model is pretty static and evolution dictates this as rapid mutation is not good. Whatever the timeframe, there is an optimal strategy and those who execute that strategy win. You have said nothing that disputes this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have given no indication that humans ir any species have ever executed the optimal strategy. A successful strategy doesn't have to be optimal - ever played the micro-limits? Natural selection is about better not best. In todays society there isn't enough driving us towards better, let alone best.