Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2017 9:11 AM
382 online now:
Faith, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ramoss, RAZD (8 members, 374 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,406 Year: 21,012/21,208 Month: 1,445/2,326 Week: 781/345 Day: 19/124 Hour: 1/9

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   How Evolution changed humans’ appearance
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 31 of 45 (710500)
11-06-2013 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by AZPaul3
11-05-2013 7:57 AM


Good question! Do you think this evolutionary nonsense is just pure chance in the content of Chromosomes x and y?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by AZPaul3, posted 11-05-2013 7:57 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 11-06-2013 7:23 AM WJK has responded

    
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 32 of 45 (710501)
11-06-2013 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NoNukes
11-05-2013 9:04 AM


Thanks for your comments! You are giving me a biology lesson and for that I'm grateful.
So can you comment on the hypothesis that a bias exists in the process of evolution from MotherOne to Miss World?
In spite of my ignorance on human evolution I find it interesting
to examine the way our appearance changes with time and is the primary reason for putting up the article. So far we seem to be skirting around the edges.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 9:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2013 9:39 AM WJK has responded

    
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 33 of 45 (710502)
11-06-2013 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
11-05-2013 9:13 AM


Re: Homo sapiens at 190,000 years ago
Many thanks for that!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2013 9:13 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 34 of 45 (710503)
11-06-2013 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
11-05-2013 8:29 PM


Re: underwhelmed
Many thanks for that.
I will study your "Fischerian runaway sexual selection "
This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2013 8:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 35 of 45 (710508)
11-06-2013 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by WJK
11-06-2013 3:23 AM


Good question! Do you think this evolutionary nonsense is just pure chance in the content of Chromosomes x and y?

Quite random actually. Remember Motherx's Dad also contributes an X chromosome to Motherx and that during miosis her Dad's X and her Mom's X randomly swap pieces parts before forming the haploid daughter cells. You also have the same thing in Fatherx. The X chromosome he contributes to the eventual daughter (or next generation Motherx) is a random moosh of his mother's and his paternal grandmother's X.

Since the phenotypic traits which go into a beautiful Miss World are due to genes scattered across her entire genome, not just the X, the random mooshing of genes taking place on every chromosome in each Motherx/Fatherx generation results in a very random outcome indeed.

Our Miss World's leg length may have come from her paternal grandfather's paternal grandmother while her high cheekbones came from her maternal grandmother's paternal grandfather without the X chromosome involved in either trait.

What you get is what you get. The only evolutionary bias in the population is the combination of all the selection pressures operating on the entire population over the entire time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by WJK, posted 11-06-2013 3:23 AM WJK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by WJK, posted 11-07-2013 1:06 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 45 (710519)
11-06-2013 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by WJK
11-06-2013 3:36 AM


So can you comment on the hypothesis that a bias exists in the process of evolution from MotherOne to Miss World?

Sure. Given a choice a man is unlikely to marry a woman he finds repulsive. Women make similar choices.

However nobody is going to marry someone who looks anything like that doll RAZD showed you.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by WJK, posted 11-06-2013 3:36 AM WJK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by WJK, posted 11-07-2013 1:25 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 37 of 45 (710574)
11-07-2013 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by AZPaul3
11-06-2013 7:23 AM


"The only evolutionary bias in the population is the combination of all the selection pressures operating on the entire population over the entire time"
I appreciate your explanation of the various selection pressures operating. I have thought that one of the pressures could be what I have called "admiration bias". Do you think that a significant pressure comes from something like that bias or something similar by a different name? If so, do you have further information on that selection pressure?
I have seen references to "sexual selection" and "Fischerian runaway sexual selection " in this thread. Related?
I appreciate your courtesy in not ridiculing some of the assertions I have made on this thread. As a layman in this area, I have obvious limitations in trying to explain situations which I find interesting! I thank you for taking the time and effort to make your comments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by AZPaul3, posted 11-06-2013 7:23 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 11-07-2013 8:20 AM WJK has responded

    
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 38 of 45 (710575)
11-07-2013 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
11-06-2013 9:39 AM


I'm getting the impression that any bias in the evolution can come from a multitude of "selection pressures". I would certainly like to know more about the particular pressure that has a marked positive effect on "attractiveness" as judged by us.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2013 9:39 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3428
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006


Message 39 of 45 (710588)
11-07-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by WJK
11-07-2013 1:06 AM


I have seen references to "sexual selection" and "Fischerian runaway sexual selection " in this thread. Related?

Not just related, "sexual selection" is the name we give the selection pressures for attractiveness, aesthetics, admiration and anything else that contributes to general hornyness.

I wanted to make three points in my message:

1. Other than determining what sex you are, the X-Y chromosome thing is a relatively minor bit and has practically no value in determining attractiveness.

2. The entire genome of a person working in concert to produce the complete outward phenotype is the key to sexual selection.

3. The genotype is randomly determined.

Sexual selection pressures certainly can cull/enhance specific traits (or rather combinations of traits ie. combinations of genes) creating a "bias" for/against those traits in a population, but in the end the entire genome as a single package is what is being selected.

So what is happening is that the genotype of an individual is randomly determined but this randomness is limited to the traits available in the population and is "biased" by the prevalence of that trait in the population. The more people with blue eyes in the population the more chance for blue-eyed babies. But no baby is guaranteed the blue-eye trait.

The chance combination of all the traits that go into making what we would consider a beautiful Miss World may not, probably will not, occur in her sisters as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by WJK, posted 11-07-2013 1:06 AM WJK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by WJK, posted 11-07-2013 10:27 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


Message 40 of 45 (710646)
11-07-2013 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AZPaul3
11-07-2013 8:20 AM


Thanks for that detailed explanation of the evolutionary process. In essence it seems to me that at every generation sexual pressure is at work with either a positive or negative effect, but with a bias for the positive.
I have found the thread very rewarding and thank the contributors for taking the time and effort to help an ignoramus with the understanding of a most interesting subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AZPaul3, posted 11-07-2013 8:20 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1322
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 41 of 45 (710651)
11-08-2013 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
11-05-2013 8:29 PM


A brief tangent on culture
The emergence of culture apparently only started some 50,000 years ago, when dolls and flutes are found.

I think your ideas are a but outdated here. The magical date of 50,000 years for the sudden emergence of a modern, cultural package is the hangover of Eurocentric palaeontology. 'Modern' culture arrived in Europe about 50,000 years ago all at once because it was brought there by people who had already gradually developed it over the course of the preceding 150,000 years in Africa. Recent discoveries have shown that people were carving abstract images, creating pigments and making jewellery in southern Africa almost as early as 100,000 years ago.

Controversial evidence that Neanderthals had artistic traditions may mean we have the push the advent of modern-like culture back a lot further than that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2013 8:29 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2013 4:52 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 42 of 45 (710679)
11-08-2013 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by caffeine
11-08-2013 5:23 AM


Re: A brief tangent on culture
... Recent discoveries have shown that people were carving abstract images, creating pigments and making jewellery in southern Africa almost as early as 100,000 years ago.

Good to know. I thought th 50k seemed off, but it was noted in two sources I looked at.

Controversial evidence that Neanderthals had artistic traditions may mean we have the push the advent of modern-like culture back a lot further than that.

Which is part of the controversy on whether there was any "social" interaction between Cro-magnon and Neanders. As I recall a flute and a doll were involved in the controversy being found in what appeared to be Neander burial.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by caffeine, posted 11-08-2013 5:23 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18855
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 43 of 45 (710680)
11-08-2013 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WJK
11-03-2013 12:59 AM


... An outstanding competition for females is the “Miss World” competition for beautiful women from around the world. The winner of a Miss World competition must be considered near the pinnacle of female beauty.

Don't know if you have been following the latest discussion on Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution, but I posted this in Message 97:

http://www.nytimes.com/...e-shape-to-venezuelan-fantasy.html

quote:
VALENCIA, Venezuela — Frustrated with the modest sales at his small mannequin factory, Eliezer Álvarez made a simple observation: Venezuelan women were increasingly using plastic surgery to transform their bodies, yet the mannequins in clothing stores did not reflect these new, often extreme proportions.

So he went back to his workshop and created the kind of woman he thought the public wanted — one with a bulging bosom and cantilevered buttocks, a wasp waist and long legs, a fiberglass fantasy, Venezuelan style.

The shape was augmented, and so were sales. Now his mannequins, and others like them, have become the standard in stores across Venezuela, ...


This demonstrates (to me) that the perceived "ideal" beauty is outside the available genotypes, and this demonstrates (to me) that we are seeing Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection. Note that both sexes are involved with pursuing this perceived "ideal" -- men, by finding the women attractive, and women, by altering their appearance to be closer to this "ideal" ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by WJK, posted 11-03-2013 12:59 AM WJK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 11-08-2013 7:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 45 by WJK, posted 11-08-2013 7:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 45 (710683)
11-08-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
11-08-2013 5:07 PM


This demonstrates (to me) that the perceived "ideal" beauty is outside the available genotypes, and this demonstrates (to me) that we are seeing Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection. Note that both sexes are involved with pursuing this perceived "ideal" -- men, by finding the women attractive, and women, by altering their appearance to be closer to this "ideal" ...

Perhaps beauty isn't defined in terms of some 'ideal', but rather in terms of the relation of various characteristics.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2013 5:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
WJK
Junior Member (Idle past 1224 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 10-31-2013


(1)
Message 45 of 45 (710684)
11-08-2013 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
11-08-2013 5:07 PM


Still getting to grips with "Fisherian Runaway Sexual Selection". As you said, much to learn. Will look at that other forum!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2013 5:07 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017