Chances Are Our Hearing Didn't Evolve "To Do" Anything

[Ralf11]

best quip I've seen on any of the threads so far!

[Abtr]

You read the article very differently from me, to the extent that after my original post and further response in comment #5 in the thread, you assess my take as obvious nonsense. That's fine.

Well, you said that I *misunderstood* the article, so I explained in some detail how I understand the article and why (IMO) it doesn't support your claim that hearing didn't evolve to do anything (and I'm sure not a single geneticist or biologist would agree with you). You didn't reply and went on discussing the broad nature of junk DNA and gene expression without providing any argument to back-up your original claim. Hence, I asked you (again) to explain it in the context of the article.

 

Do you see any reason why a third explanation would have a different result? If not, why should we expend our efforts to wind up at exactly the same place?

I don't know.. The paper argues that human evolution took place in a kind of 'high entropy' evolutionary regime which created many more opportunities for evolution than would a regime with (much) higher evolutionary pressure. If you (still) think this implies that chances are our hearing didn't evolve to do anything, then that's fine. But I certainly don't see it..

[Jud]

Well, you said that I *misunderstood* the article, so I explained in some detail how I understand the article and why (IMO) it doesn't support your claim that hearing didn't evolve to do anything (and I'm sure not a single geneticist or biologist would agree with you). You didn't reply and went on discussing the broad nature of junk DNA and gene expression without providing any argument to back-up your original claim. Hence, I asked you (again) to explain it in the context of the article.

 

 

I don't know.. The paper argues that human evolution took place in a kind of 'high entropy' evolutionary regime which created many more opportunities for evolution than would a regime with (much) higher evolutionary pressure. If you (still) think this implies that chances are our hearing didn't evolve to do anything, then that's fine. But I certainly don't see it..

 

Was it you who in another thread continued to insist on your original position that having five or six reclocker-converter boxes all in series between your source and your DAC gave you superior sound, in the face of any suggestion otherwise? If so, I would guess the answer to my question about whether another explanation might change your position here would quite likely be no.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Abtr]

Was it you who in another thread continued to insist on your original position that having five or six reclocker-converter boxes all in series between your source and your DAC gave you superior sound, in the face of any suggestion otherwise? If so, I would guess the answer to my question about whether another explanation might change your position here would quite likely be no.

Did you see my signature? And these boxes (Intona > Audio-gd DDC > Mutec MC-3 > S/PDIF DAC) at the time didn't sound *superior* but somehow sounded *better* than the chain Intona > Regen > USB DAC, because there was a *ground-loop* in my system. Once the ground-loop was removed, the USB problem was solved. Did you miss that in the other thread?

[Abtr]

… I would guess the answer to my question about whether another explanation might change your position here would quite likely be no.

This is getting ridiculous. You expect me to "change position" and accept your claim that "hearing didn't evolve to do anything?" Dude, as I said, not a single geneticist or biologist would agree with you. Are you trolling?

 

I take it you can't explain how the article you originally referred to would imply that hearing didn't evolve to do anything. Actually, anyone can verify that it doesn't imply this. So instead of telling me that I don't understand it, you should seriously consider that you don't understand the article yourself, or (if that's at all possible for you) admit that you are wrong.

[Jud]

This is getting ridiculous. You expect me to "change position" and accept your claim that "hearing didn't evolve to do anything?" Dude, as I said, not a single geneticist or biologist would agree with you. Are you trolling?

 

I take it you can't explain how the article you originally referred to would imply that hearing didn't evolve to do anything. Actually, anyone can verify that it doesn't imply this. So instead of telling me that I don't understand it, you should seriously consider that you don't understand the article yourself, or (if that's at all possible for you) admit that you are wrong.

 

Yes, I recognize that same confident tone from the other thread. You insisted for months, in the face of all offered suggestions otherwise, that your async USB DAC had worse jitter than your CD player over an SPDIF connection, if I remember correctly. And you were equally sure that this jitter was reduced and your sound improved by five or six different reclocker/converter boxes in front of the DAC. People wasted many posts trying to point out the ridiculousness of this "logic" to you, but your confidence was unshakable.

 

I didn't know you finally determined it was a ground loop (who would ever have thought *that*, with seven or eight boxes and all their power supplies and cables in the circuit? :roll eyes:). I'd long since stopped reading the thread.

 

I've got no intention of bothering with your intractable stubbornness in this thread. This comment, then, will serve to welcome you back to my ignore list.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jabbr]

I think there are some common misconceptions about natural selection -- at least the way I see it.

 

1) Evolution does monotonically progress nor is there a single "goal"

2) The concept of "survival of the fittest" suggesting that a "better" gene will eventually win out and take over is flawed.

3) If that were the case then the species would be more at risk for a new threat that targetted the single gene -- placing the species itself at risk.

4) A more robust situation against future, unknown, threats exists when diversity is maintained

5) Gene diversity is not simply the product of random mutations

6) There are active processes which generate diversity

 

So you know people that have "perfect pitch" are present along with people who are tone deaf and in between.

[Jud]

I think there are some common misconceptions about natural selection -- at least the way I see it.

 

1) Evolution does monotonically progress nor is there a single "goal"

2) The concept of "survival of the fittest" suggesting that a "better" gene will eventually win out and take over is flawed.

3) If that were the case then the species would be more at risk for a new threat that targetted the single gene -- placing the species itself at risk.

4) A more robust situation against future, unknown, threats exists when diversity is maintained

5) Gene diversity is not simply the product of random mutations

6) There are active processes which generate diversity

 

So you know people that have "perfect pitch" are present along with people who are tone deaf and in between.

 

It's 5 and 6 I'm a little skeptical about. Do we really need those "active processes," or is traditional population genetics (showing neutral or even mildly deleterious mutations can stay in a population a long time with relatively smaller effective population sizes) sufficient?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jabbr]

It's 5 and 6 I'm a little skeptical about. Do we really need those "active processes," or is traditional population genetics (showing neutral or even mildly deleterious mutations can stay in a population a long time with relatively smaller effective population sizes) sufficient?

 

I doesn't matter whether they are "needed", the active processes which generate diversity are a simple biological fact. I've already discussed what they are. Again: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00445-9?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982212004459%3Fshowall%3Dtrue this spells it out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884099/

[Jud]

I doesn't matter whether they are "needed", the active processes which generate diversity are a simple biological fact. I've already discussed what they are. Again: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(12)00445-9?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982212004459%3Fshowall%3Dtrue this spells it out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884099/

 

Are the sequences regulating/performing this activity conserved?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jabbr]

Are the sequences regulating/performing this activity conserved?

Why don't you read the articles and tell us how they answer your question.

[Abtr]

… This comment, then, will serve to welcome you back to my ignore list.

Good.

[Jud]

Why don't you read the articles and tell us how they answer your question.

 

In the process (and enjoying the longer survey article).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[Jud]

About variation in the protein-coding portion of the human genome, may be of interest: Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans : Nature : Nature Research

[Ralf11]

Are TADs just co-adapted gene complexes in drag?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/science/dna-tads.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below

[jabbr]

Good reference discussing relevance of 3D chromosome structure/domains to disease TADs of are a way to look at this : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961005/#!po=26.8229

[Jud]

See, multicellularity is simple (not really, but this is still very interesting):

 

https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e10147

[Ralf11]

I am still thinking about a really good book directed at the intelligent lay audience which describe all the frankly amazing discoveries and knowledge about modern molecular genetics/genomics...

 

The only thing I can come up with is an Introductory biology textbook (freshman year), followed by a text in genetics* for a Soph. core course

 

* the only genetics taught these days is molecular genetics so you won't have to worry about seeing much else

 

of course, it is not really directed towards a lay audience except to turn them into a BS, but that's as close as I can come

[Jud]

The guy whose list of junk DNA percentages I cribbed above wrote a text.

 

[jabbr]

Yeah I think the "problem" with molecular genetics as I imagine it's taught at the undergrad level is that it (likely) focuses on the basics of transcription, DNA repair, reverse transcriptase, mitochondrial DNA, RNA etc but doesn't delve into the more advanced but increasingly less esoteric stuff

 

These scientists who are building mathematical theories based on classical molecular genetics or even still talking about the "junk" vs non-junk debates of thirty years ago fail to realize that the "new" molecular genomics upends these old debates as in the sense that relativity upended classical mechanics.

 

Of course I've never had reason to look at an undergrad textbook in the last 30 years but I do acutely remember that the profs were talking and publishing about all this stuff at the graduate level 30 years ago.

[Ralf11]

the real question is: how do you make a hand?

[Abtr]

the real question is: how do you make a hand?

Or a brain..

[Jud]

the real question is: how do you make a hand?

 

Umm, a pseudopod and 3.5 billion years?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Computer Audiophile

[jabbr]

the real question is: how do you make a hand?

[Ralf11]

There is a back story to that question. I was asked it by my PhD advisor while in a wild area (road existed but was closed to the public) a long time ago. I'd been complaining about all the funding going to cell & molecular biology.

 

I eventually figured out the answer was: With a developmental field.

 

 

 

But what we need for the question in the OP is a book by a cognitive psychologist on audiophiles & hearing