Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Humans Still Evolving?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 67 (110234)
05-24-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Unseul
05-24-2004 7:54 PM


It is just never so simple as that
So we have lazy, more likely to be less intelligent, people encouraged to have more children, whereas intelligent hardworkers are less likely to have children, selection pressures and variation in alleles, evolution.
Just thought id let you have a play with that one.
Remember the children have to grow up and reproduce successfully. What if they are more inclined to illness or violence if they are in less supportive or well off homes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Unseul, posted 05-24-2004 7:54 PM Unseul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Unseul, posted 05-25-2004 1:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mogur
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 67 (110235)
05-24-2004 10:35 PM


And that is called selective advantage; get off the wrestling mat, and have an orgasm or two. They do not equate.

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 18 of 67 (110307)
05-25-2004 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Unseul
05-24-2004 7:54 PM


quite so.
not only is the quantity (are we nearing overpopulation?), but the quality of offspring is dreadfully important. while you can acquire very intelligent children from less intelligent parents, it rarely happens. governments need to change their welfare policies. yes women with a child or two should get some benefits, but to pay them to keep breeding is not constructive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Unseul, posted 05-24-2004 7:54 PM Unseul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Unseul, posted 05-25-2004 1:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 36 by Taqless, posted 05-28-2004 8:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 19 of 67 (110311)
05-25-2004 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Loudmouth
05-24-2004 1:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Loudmouth:
< !--UB
< !--UE-->
For us in the Developed World, I will agree. But I am pretty sure mos of the human population still lives in Second and Third World nations. Inner Africa, for example, is still rife with disease, hard labor, lack of AC, etc. Parts of Asia are the same. Even in the rural parts of China they still depend on animal labor for harvesting and preparing fields.
That said, just a quick example of a new, beneficial gene that is set to proliferate in a human population.
< !--UB
-->
< !--UE-->J Evol Biol. 2004 Jan;17(1):221-4. Related Articles, Links
Estimation of relative fitnesses from relative risk data and the predicted future of haemoglobin alleles S and C.
Hedrick P.
School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AR 85287, USA. philip.hedrick@asu.edu
Epidemiological studies of genetic differences in disease susceptibility often estimate the relative risks (RR) of different genotypes. Here I provide an approach to calculate the relative fitnesses of different genotypes based on RR data so that population genetic approaches may be utilized with these data. Using recent RR data on human haemoglobin beta genotypes from Burkina Faso, this approach is used to predict changes in the frequency of the haemoglobin sickle-cell S and C alleles. Overall, it generally appears that allele C will quickly replace the S allele in malarial environments. Explicit population genetic predictions suggest that this replacement may occur within the next 50 generations in Burkina Faso.< !--UB -->
< !--UE-->
Haemoglobin S is the sickle cell gene. If you have one copy of the gene, you have increased resistance to malaria. However, if you have two copies, then you develop sickle cell anemia. The newer gene, haemoglobin C, does not have the disadvantage of causing anemia when it is homozygous, but does offer increased resistance to malaria. It is hypothesized that this gene will sweep through areas of Africa with endemic malaria.

first. that gene looks very exciting. coolness.
next. how much of the third world is now under direct threat? lots. aids is devastating subsaharan africa. it is expected to start doing the same in china. god help us when it takes over india.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 05-24-2004 1:28 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 67 (110424)
05-25-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
05-24-2004 10:34 PM


Re: It is just never so simple as that
However if the children follow similar patterns to the parents (not unlikely, since that is how they have been bought up) Then it is quite feasible that this will occur.
I see no reason as to why illness would come into it, i suppose it could be a selection process, but i dont feel that it would be acting only on those less intelligent genes, but probably more distributed. As far as violence is concerned only in more extreme cases can i imagine that seriously limiting someones reproductive ability, as in death or jail for at least 6 or 7 years, and even then for men (more likely to commit violent crimes i think) its still not a severe impact on reproductive ability.
I'm making the rather large (but supportable i suspect) assumption that children often follow in parents footsteps in general terms.
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 05-24-2004 10:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Unseul
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 67 (110427)
05-25-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by macaroniandcheese
05-25-2004 2:48 AM


Define overpopulated. As far as feeding people, then if we were to work together, cut down all the forests etc and make all available space either dedicated to food or housing, i think we are capable of supporting around 40 billion, however id say that in general we are probably over populated in most places already at only 6 billion. For example the UK currently hass about 60 million inhabitants, however it would be more economical (and more able to support in case of any sort of disaster etc) if we had around 30 million (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/ this website gives a reasonable amount of info on the topic, at first i thought it was quite propoganda filled, but according to my lecturers (who i trust) its quite close to the truth).
Unseul

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 2:48 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 4:15 PM Unseul has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 22 of 67 (110454)
05-25-2004 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Unseul
05-25-2004 1:54 PM


i was asking the question if people believed the earth to be overpopulated. i do not think it is (as a whole... lots of food goes to waste.) but some areas most likely are (deserts don't tend to support lots of human life.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Unseul, posted 05-25-2004 1:54 PM Unseul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 5:34 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 23 of 67 (110465)
05-25-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by nator
05-24-2004 1:24 PM


Nobody takes psychology serious, for the most part...
The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior is prefaced with an editorial apology.
It basics acknowledges that the encyclopedia is simething of a farce, in that, inspite of being the oldest science, the study of human behavior has yielded little. The so called encyclopedia is, as we are informed, little more than separate and rather isolated studies, deliniating some systems of psychology which for the most part died out with their originator's passing.
Freud, as opposed to Freudian Analysis, did bring to our conscious attention the existence of an immaterial heaven of subconscious mental mediators, seven psychic archetypes.
This is more important for future contemplation than the study of deceased and unused systems invented immediately after Freud and Jung. It represents an area of human investigation still shrouded by darkness.
It matters little that there are few Freudians, but much that there is a subconscious Freudian heaven of mental interaction in our own skulls. It matters much that there is an observable motivation behind the actions of others. It matters much that there is a whole group mentality, the Social Groups, based upon these entities. It matters much that there is, at large in our society, institutionalized Social Forces. It matters much that these are subconsciously at work in our world as they are unnoticed in our own mind.
Few can deny that the Bible is largely concerned with individual human behavior, also.
In this, religion has not only found fertile soil for its current practices in counciling, but ought examine the obvious mutuality of secular psychologies and ancient religious concepts.
True?
Rev. 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars (the sevenfold spirit of the psyche: Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Harmony, Superego): and out of his mouth went a two-edged sword (cutting both secular and theological understandings): and his countenance was as the sun (of rationality) shineth in his strength (of factual knowledge).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nator, posted 05-24-2004 1:24 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by nator, posted 06-03-2004 11:00 AM kofh2u has replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 24 of 67 (110472)
05-25-2004 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by macaroniandcheese
05-25-2004 4:15 PM


Lots of food goes to waste, but it will always be that way. To bring every edible piece of food to a needy consumer before it goes bad would require a tremendous expenditure of kinetic energy. The cost of that energy is unlikely to be borne by people who can't even afford food, and the generosity of the affluent is likely to be taxed as the population grows further.
The reasons why many scientists believe we have already passed carrying capacity are many. For starters, fossil fuels, arable soil, and fisheries, all of which are absolutely vital to the survival of many people today, are being increasingly consumed at unsustainable rates. Even today's population makes resource demands that cannot be met forever by the earth we now have, and every year we reduce the carrying capacity of the end state by destroying the things which keep us alive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 4:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 6:01 PM zephyr has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 25 of 67 (110481)
05-25-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by zephyr
05-25-2004 5:34 PM


well fossil fuels change everything. but then i don't consider them vital. if there was drive enough, we would already have more efficient means of engery production. as it stands, there is too much money to be made bleeding the earth. the biggest problem is that so many cities are built around the automobile... ie things are too far away to walk on a consistent and timely basis.
people are, it seems, lazy and wasteful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 5:34 PM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 05-25-2004 6:20 PM macaroniandcheese has replied
 Message 28 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 6:26 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 26 of 67 (110482)
05-25-2004 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
05-24-2004 3:53 PM


even the ugliest man wants a pretty girl
Hi Loudmouth, I think you have a point that is born out in nature. Humans are attracted to symmetry and the appearance of physical health. I am a believer in the Bauhaus principal of simplicity and form dictates function. A human being is a magnificent example of this. Fat, Short Squatty unattractive people are not as desired as svelt, strong, tall attractive athletic people. There is a reason for this it is biology. Is it fair? no. Is it polictically correct? No. But is it true? I believe you hit it right on the head. The real kicker is there are some lucky individuals out there that have brains and personality and looks to match.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 05-24-2004 3:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by nator, posted 06-03-2004 11:10 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 27 of 67 (110488)
05-25-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by macaroniandcheese
05-25-2004 6:01 PM


brennaakimi writes:
people are, it seems, are lazy and wasteful.
I dated this girl that would not eat meat, but wore leather sandals upon her feet. She dispised the condition of the air but never walked to work she had no time to spare.
Fellow EvC 'ers feel free to complete my prose.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 6:01 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 6:58 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 28 of 67 (110489)
05-25-2004 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by macaroniandcheese
05-25-2004 6:01 PM


So that's one part of the equation... and I think you may not appreciate its importance. Between the fertilizers, pesticides, and transportation energy required to bring food to consumers in the developed world, a great portion of our food directly depends on petroleum products that lack economically viable replacements. We, in effect, consume fossil fuel energy when we eat chemically inflated crops trucked into our area.
The methods we use to grow food today will not last. Unlimited solar and nuclear power in every combine and tractor (prohibitively expensive, regardless) would still leave us with the loss of fertilizers and poisons that keep the crop alive and growing large.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 6:01 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-25-2004 6:57 PM zephyr has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 29 of 67 (110496)
05-25-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by zephyr
05-25-2004 6:26 PM


quite so. a friend of mine has a few banana trees in her yard. she gave me a few bunches yesterday. the bananas are about 1/4 the size of those bought in the store but arguably yummier. people come to expect way too much and our boosting of food's nutrition only contributes to excess nutrition in our diets... and thus obesity. wastefulness and laziness again. right now i'm very very restricted on my income (read: i am a full time student so that's about 38k a year and i only have a less than 800 per month income.) i'm riding my bike and using the bus and eating a lot less than i might otherwise. i'm starting to get a better grasp for efficiency. and starting to realize the value of a budget. i'm becoming less lazy and less wasteful. i made a quiche because it will keep for a while and stuff. but i made it on friday and left it in the fridge over the weekend instead of freezing it. i only got half of it eaten and the last two pieces made me nauseated. it made me more sick to know that i have to throw that away now. not just the fact that that is 3 days of food for me but that i spent money on it. i think people ought to have lessons in living within a small budget. people would be very different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by zephyr, posted 05-25-2004 6:26 PM zephyr has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 30 of 67 (110497)
05-25-2004 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by 1.61803
05-25-2004 6:20 PM


i hate people like that.
it's like not voting but complaining about those in office. even if you don't believe that the system works, it is better to make that effort.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by 1.61803, posted 05-25-2004 6:20 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024