I know the scene whereof you speak. CGI.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Eric Charles wrote: > Bit of a tangent, but... > >> Consider Arnold in the role of Terminator. He managed to convey a lot of >> menace and dominance simply from size and overall shape; never once >> brandishing his penis to intimidate anyone. > > Having recently watched the theatrical release of Terminator, I was surprised > to find that in addition to the numerous ass shots I knew were there, there > *is* full frontal of Arnold early in the film. The dangly bits are > enshadowed, but not really hidden. Happens as he's walking through a park > towards 3 "punks", leading up to the iconic "Your clothes, give them to me." > line. > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >> __ >> Because I left before it ended, I have no idea how the spandrel discussion >> ended. Nick requested an explanation/elaboration/justification for my >> continued skepticism/resistance (other than being willfully obstinate for no >> reason) to the notion of spandrel. Hence the following — elaborated beyond >> the specific question of spandrel as fodder for continuing discussion next >> Friday. >> >> 1- I am convinced that evolutionary biologists are secretly required to read >> Rudyard Kipling as prerequisite to the granting of a Ph.D.. Because, every >> story about the evolution of a specific feature — Friday it was the >> pseudo-penis of female hyenas — sounds like, and is as convincing as, one of >> Kipling's *Just So *stories. *[Yes, trolling.]* >> >> 2- Pseudo-penis as spandrel: >> a- Testosterone flooded female hyenas are selected because aggressive >> females have survival value in matriarchal hyena society. This really seems, >> to me, to pose a chicken-egg problem: matriarchy or female bullies first? >> b- Testosterone flooding creates a space — a spandrel — a space that is >> then "decorated." One example of 'decoration' is the pseudo-penis. >> c- by what mechanism does the decoration come about? Nick said it was a >> direct result of testosterone flooding, that "all" such results would >> appear, that none of them was independently 'selected for." This is a >> specific area where I fail to understand what Nick is saying and need >> correction. If I heard correctly that all effects of testosterone flooding >> would appear — Nick emphatically said "all" and "will" in his explanation — >> then: >> -- we should not only see a clitoris run amok, but also beards, rock >> hard pecs instead of pillow-breasts, 20-inch biceps, denser bones, and >> overall greater muscle mass. >> -- the "purpose" of the pseudo-penis is aggression display and >> reproductive-act dominance. But, of all the results of testosterone flooding >> that "will" result, a big penis seems the least useful for that purpose. >> Muscles and size would seem more than sufficient. Consider Arnold in the >> role of Terminator. He managed to convey a lot of menace and dominance >> simply from size and overall shape; never once brandishing his penis to >> intimidate anyone. (And if we assume he was as liberal a user of steroids in >> his body-building career as many of his colleagues, his penis would not have >> scared a squirrel.) >> -- Why so baroque a decoration? >> -- Why did testosterone cause the clitoris to merge with the urethra and >> the vagina? Did these not exist as separate organs in predecessor species to >> the hyena? How is that even possible? is the pseudo-penis not a >> clitoris-urethra-vagina at all but some kind of evolution of an avian cloaca? >> -- This specific decoration seems to have anti-survival consequences >> (most firstborn hyenas are also stillborn) and yet this decoration seems >> immune to selection. Or maybe not, we have yet to see what might succeed >> hyenas a few million years from now. >> >> 3- More general issue: whole-part evolution. Jon seemed to understand what I >> was trying to say last Friday on this matter. >> a- Consider the peregrine falcon. Some of the traits/features that make >> it a formidable predator: very lightweight bones coupled with overdeveloped >> muscles which contribute to its ability to withstand G forces and make 200 >> mile per hour dives (and withstand the shock of kinetic energy when it hits >> its prey); razor sharp talons; notched beak to sever spinal columns; >> full-color binocular vision with resolution that allows seeing a pigeon at >> distances greater than a mile; nictating membrane to protect from wind force >> during dives; and ability to see into the ultra-violet spectrum. >> b- If I understand Darwin *(a huge if):* each of these features is the >> result of a sequence of selected/preserved minute changes in single >> molecules: e.g. keratin, opsins, crystallins. Each of these molecules are >> expressed as a sequence of amino acid 'letters', 20 in number. If the string >> of letters were 100 characters in length (crystallins and opsins are much >> longer) then the odds of any given string are 20 to the 100 power. By >> comparison, the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe is estimated to be >> 10 to the 90th power. >> c- If evolution proceeded with one amino acid letter pairing with a >> second, getting selected, then pairing with a third, etc., each addition >> being one of 20 equally probable options; then, coming up with the string >> that expresses, precisely, as the falcon's beak is fantastically improbable >> (winning the lottery every year since the Big Bang). >> d- This brings in the question of time. Has there been sufficient time >> for a process of random change / selection to allow the formation of such a >> string. This was a huge issue for Darwin because the prevailing scientific >> estimate of the age of the Earth was twenty-million years. [Lord Kelvin >> using the equations of thermodynamics.] This was not nearly enough time for >> Darwin's evolution and he was **"greatly troubled by it."** Rutherford, >> using radioactive decay equations, *"saved"* Darwin by extending the age of >> the Earth to 4.5 billion years. >> e- **Kind-of**. If evolution literally proceeds one amino acid letter at >> a time to assemble a specific string that has a probability of existing of 1 >> / 20 to the hundredth power (or more) — there is insufficient time since the >> Big Bang for that string to emerge via chance. >> f- it seems as if some kind of short-cut is essential. Suppose you have >> parallel/simultaneous evolution of 'sub-strings' and then 'main-line' >> evolution proceeds upon combinations (wholes) of these strings, Then, it is >> quite likely that 4.5 billion years provides sufficient time. This, it seems >> to me, suggests that evolution deals with an aggregate, a whole; not >> individual amino acids one-by-one, or even sub-strings one-by-one. >> g- Which circles back to the falcon. If each of the mentioned >> traits/features evolved independently and sequentially then we run out of >> time again. If each of the traits/features evolved independently then there >> seems to be a macro-problem of how they 'just happened' to occur >> simultaneously and apparently 'in concert'. >> >> So my conclusion, *apparently wrong because it disagrees with the experts in >> the group*, is that evolution must proceed whole-organism to whole-organism >> and not, feature-trait by feature-trait the way that it is presented. >> >> This also means, that individual feature-traits — as marvelous as the the >> falcon's eye or as silly as the pseudo-penis — cannot, and should not be >> "explained" independently. To do so is to focus on the 'noise' and not the >> 'signal'. Such efforts are the product of 19th century thinking and unworthy >> of complexity scientists like yourselves. >> >> davew >> >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
