Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SniHjen]

wow? how did you read that?

My point is:

being smart, being strong, being fast, are things humans WANT to be, we see genes that improve these abbilities as "good"

but they are unnececary, being rich/poor is a socialogical problem.

"bad genes" will have little influence here.

[Muz]

I'm a white man, and I think tan people are gross. 

Your theory is falling apart.

Heh, I thought I put a "Generally" somewhere in that statement to say that not everyone is that way. Evolutionary biology is a very complicated thing, and putting it down to a few paragraphs is difficult. You might be different, but the fact that there are probably tanning salons in your country just proves the theory, especially since you won't find them in say, India. Or even Vietnam. But then, there's such a thing as 'whitening cream' in those countries.

also: creationist says "evilution" is false because dogs doesn't give birth to cats.
How the fuck can people be so stupid still?

Interesting thing there. There's an old theory that dogs evolved from domesticated wolves. Well, some guy somewhere tamed a fox, and after a few generations the tamed foxes started to resemble dogs physically and psychologically.


And I think the OP meant "natural selection" instead of Darwinism. People often say that the simple F=ma and such as Newtonian physics, so I guess that makes sense

[G-Flex]

Dogs developing from wolves isn't exactly controversial, though. It makes perfect sense. Hell, I think dogs can still reproduce WITH wolves.

[Leafsnail]

wow? how did you read that?

My point is:

being smart, being strong, being fast, are things humans WANT to be, we see genes that improve these abbilities as "good"

but they are unnececary, being rich/poor is a socialogical problem.

"bad genes" will have little influence here.

Exactly, but you regarded my post with such sustain that I had to conclude you disagreed with the sentiment wholly.

Interesting thing there. There's an old theory that dogs evolved from domesticated wolves. Well, some guy somewhere tamed a fox, and after a few generations the tamed foxes started to resemble dogs physically and psychologically.

Yeah, we find the bones of wolves and later on something resembling dogs among "stone age" camps.  Dogs were very important for hunting - they can track a target and bring it down, and are happy to share with their masters.  Wolves were gradually domesticated into dogs, although they are still actually the same species (ie any dog can breed with a wolf and still have fertile offspring).  Foxes lack a lot of the characteristics of dogs, and also aren't of the same species, so it doesn't seem too likely.

There have also been some suggestions that dogs, to some extent, helped domesticate humans.  Once you could reliably hunt and had dogs/ wolves to help protect you from wild animals, you could settle down more, and begin to form villages.  Just speculation, of course.

EDIT: Part ninja'd by G-flex

[LegoLord]

I think he meant wolves.  Either that or it was sarcasm.

I dunno, its a bit of a nasty gray area I'm going into here. But I do agree with you umi, the gene pool is depressingly average.

Gray? how?

also, this "depressingly average" is AGAIN a humanist point of view.

Yeah, the average comment is stupid; you can't have a gene pool without an average. 

As for gray area; genetic engineering is considered morally gray.  People worry that everyone will look the same, because everyone wants their kids to look like X beautiful person, or that we will develop some sort of super weed, or that our genes will be de-stabilized over time and we'll die from it. (Scott Westerfeld's book Uglies has some good examples of worries about genetic engineering, among other issues).

[SniHjen]

Exactly, but you regarded my post with such sustain that I had to conclude you disagreed with the sentiment wholly.

Ah...

I apologize.

[Jude]

@ Legolord's post...Gattaca will come true; there is no way around it. That is the future of the human race. The only question is when.

[JoshuaFH]

One notable biologist said that "the purpose of reproduction is for genes to live". That's pretty much how natural selection works. If one gene can survive more by helping millions others, it works well.. helps you in vision, shedding old skin, growing your fingernail, etc. If a gene can only exist by being malicious, you get cancer. That said, it doesn't always know what all the other genes are doing, that's what the brain is for, that's what reflexes are for, etc. It's somewhat more complicated than that, but it's pretty much a tl;dr of a few chapters of a book in evolutionary biology.

Humans sort of mess up Darwinism. We have all sorts of methods to determine the best mate. It doesn't work like animals... poor people would want to reproduce more, as more reproduction brings in more money. They also pass down more of their genes that way. Humans tend to go for loyal mates.

Rich, educated people prefer an intellectual, rich mate. You don't find some billionaire marrying some dumb blonde; he'll sleep with them, but won't take care of the kids.

Also, the cliches of women liking men with money, men liking a slim/curvaceous woman. Because those women expect the men to provide their children with plenty of resources, while the men expect the women to reproduce enough.

And interestingly, everyone has their own perception of what's attractive. People tend to go for foreigners because of genetic diversity. White men like tanned women, Asians prefer fair skinned women. Those who are already genetically diverse (mixed blood) tend to be extremely attractive to everyone. Just look at the genetic line of a lot of supermodels and actors, actresses. Good boys going for bad girls (and vice versa) works because they tend to cover each other's weaknesses and strengths.

Natural selection still shows up in humanity though, the most obvious being how some people treat their stepchildren. Stepchildren seem to have a bit of extra hostility because they take up the resources that should be given to genetic children, but not actually spread any genes. If you look at most of the horror news where parents kill their children, it's often that one of them is a step-parent.

It's still a matter of perception though. Humans tend to overthink. While our instincts are wired to appreciate the nutrients in an apple, our tongues enjoy apple-flavored juice. In the same way, we are also prone to giving adopted children, or dumb models a huge chunk of our resources even though it doesn't put us at a genetic advantage.

tl;dr: It works.

I don't know Muz, I'm not an expert in anything, but this reeks of fallacious reasoning. Correlation does not imply causation is what it reminds me of, to be exact.

Some (or all, more precisely) of these points are caused by things other than your genes ever so subtly pushing you into doing doing them, is what I'm trying to say.

[Leafsnail]

By doing studies with identical and non identical twins, (looking at the differences between them) it is possible to have a vague idea how much genes influence things.  There is a broad spectrum - some things are 100% genes (Cystic Fibrosis, Huntingdon's disease) some things are wholly environmental (language, religion, culture) and almost everything else is somewhere in the middle (Cancer?  Obesity?  Height?  Personality?).  The main idea is not establishing whether genes have an effect, but how much of an effect they tend to have.

[Jude]

By doing studies with identical and non identical twins, (looking at the differences between them) it is possible to have a vague idea how much genes influence things.  There is a broad spectrum - some things are 100% genes (Cystic Fibrosis, Huntingdon's disease) some things are wholly environmental (language, religion, culture) and almost everything else is somewhere in the middle (Cancer?  Obesity?  Height?  Personality?).  The main idea is not establishing whether genes have an effect, but how much of an effect they tend to have.

The problem with saying that things like "language, religion and culture" are wholly environmental is that even those things depend on human-specific mental mechanisms, which are functions of a brain whose structure and function depends on genes. That's why a human child raised in a human family acquires the language of those around it, but a young chimpanzee does not.

Similarly, even genetic diseases cannot be said to be 100% "genes" (as opposed to environment) because the expressions of many genes are very dependent on conditions outside the genome, not least proper nutrition, exposure to clean air and water and sunlight, etc. This is a somewhat less fallacious claim than saying learned behaviors are "purely environmental," though.

But the point is, there's no real spectrum of genes vs. environment; everything about people (and every other organism) is a complex web of interactions between the two, of which we only understand the basics.

Most of Muz's assertions are (albeit sometimes oversimplified) standards of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, fields which get attacked all the time on (ridiculous) ethical grounds but only occasionally on valid scientific ones...but that's another story.

[Ampersand]

I think this thread has been severely derailed.

The problem of continuing human evolution is simply that the environment has been so deeply modified by human beings on a global scale, to the point that reproduction is a non-issue. Barring severe genetic defect, a human being on the earth can breed with basically any other human being on the earth. No population of humans on earth lives in isolation from any other population. Any isolation is purely artificial, legal, or cultural. This should theoretically lead to a general homogeneity among human genes.

We have rebuilt the world to conform to us, condensed the whole world to the size of a large city.

I believe the next step in human evolution is the point at which we take reigns and steer as we wish. We can be stronger. Faster. Smarter.

[G-Flex]

I think this thread has been severely derailed.

The problem of continuing human evolution is simply that the environment has been so deeply modified by human beings on a global scale, to the point that reproduction is a non-issue. Barring severe genetic defect, a human being on the earth can breed with basically any other human being on the earth. No population of humans on earth lives in isolation from any other population. Any isolation is purely artificial, legal, or cultural.

Eventually, maybe, but not the case right now. Theoretically, yeah, I could move to some random African nation and have a kid with someone there, but it still doesn't happen often. People still tend to breed with those around them.

Also, sexual selection still exists.

[Ampersand]

That is why I said that any isolation that exists is artificial. While it may not often be the case that someone moves to some random African country and have a kid with someone there, a person from some random African country coming to America and having a kid with someone here happens frequently enough that a child of such a union is the president.

[G-Flex]

How is it "artificial"?

The boundaries between guys living on completely different continents is completely natural. You could call the COLLAPSE of those boundaries "artificial" since they rely on human ingenuity and technology, but I'm not sure there's even a meaningful distinction to be made there.

[Jude]

What's "artificial?" Anything humans have ever touched at some point?