define unfit for humans[b said:Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 22 2005,9:42)]For a species in it's entirety to progress, some genes need to be totally out of the genepool. The fact that some people that would normally be considered "unfit" can still be married and produce offspring, halts evolution.
what birds?[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:39)]says who? we can't mate with birds now did we?[b said:Quote[/b] ]The fact that Drosophila paulistorum did at one time cross means it possible again
they breed fast and speciation doesn't have a time limit.[b said:Quote[/b] ], and it was only like 8 years later which isnt really enough time to truely speciate
umm.... isn't that the WHOLE POINT?[b said:Quote[/b] ]and if the orginal specimens were still being used it is possible they mutated,
ok... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....tes_ex3[b said:Quote[/b] ]and yes i know that a t-rex is not a guineapig, however you were talking about hominids which is what i directed that comment at.
we may not know if the last two could interbreed, but the first one and the last one definately couldn't, and there are many fossils in beteween... falling in chronological order... so to say that fossils show some kind of flaw because we don't know exactly where one species begins and the other ends isn't an accurate statement.
not all humans have the same instincts. Some humans are mono and others are poly.[b said:Quote[/b] ]It does matter that its culturally based, since it is imposing something that goes against hte instincts that humans have
the differences between men and women... men hunt, women care for the children and cook, etc... nowdays you don't have to but there's still that custom. male and female brains work differently as do young and old brains. That's why there's difference... that's how cultures began, from differences. Just like blacks and whites have different genes and therefore have different genes, not all humans are mono or poly (i forget the second part...lol)[b said:Quote[/b] ]and what cultural features have a basis in genes?
not necessarily. some people are naturally monogomous and others are naturally polygomous. There are people like that everywhere. Sure, you're more likely to be a certain way in a certain environment but that's because you're expected to and not necessarily how you would act naturally if you weren't pressured to be certain ways.[b said:Quote[/b] ]but back to my point the most important thing to consider about monogomy is the fact that it is imposed by culture.
it doesn't halt it because they have a higher chance of not having kids. More "fit" people have kids than "unfit" people. That's not halting evolution... it's slowing it.[b said:Quote[/b] ]some people that would normally be considered "unfit" can still be married and produce offspring, halts evolution.
no but if it can interbreed with others dog with the same mutation then you do. and that's what happened with the whatever we were talking about.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and the mutation could just make that one plant, or one set of plants a genetic anomly not able to mate with anything, if my dog suddenly develops a mutation that prevents it from mating with teh dog down the street even though it did at one point do i suddenly have a new species of animal that has never been seen before?
huh? when did I mention birds? the clink sends you to pictures of hominid skulls... doesn't it? it does for me...[b said:Quote[/b] ]what birds? what are you trying to say here.
mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:48)]not all humans have the same instincts. Some humans are mono and others are poly.[b said:Quote[/b] ]It does matter that its culturally based, since it is imposing something that goes against hte instincts that humans have
the differences between men and women... men hunt, women care for the children and cook, etc... nowdays you don't have to but there's still that custom. male and female brains work differently as do young and old brains. That's why there's difference... that's how cultures began, from differences. Just like blacks and whites have different genes and therefore have different genes, not all humans are mono or poly (i forget the second part...lol)[b said:Quote[/b] ]and what cultural features have a basis in genes?
not necessarily. some people are naturally monogomous and others are naturally polygomous. There are people like that everywhere. Sure, you're more likely to be a certain way in a certain environment but that's because you're expected to and not necessarily how you would act naturally if you weren't pressured to be certain ways.[b said:Quote[/b] ]but back to my point the most important thing to consider about monogomy is the fact that it is imposed by culture.
umm it was the first thing i qouted when i said that you said "says who? we can't mate with birds now did we?"[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:52)]huh? when did I mention birds? the clink sends you to pictures of hominid skulls... doesn't it? it does for me...[b said:Quote[/b] ]what birds? what are you trying to say here.
it doesnt say that, it says it produced sterile males when they tried to cross it again, it says nothing about it mating with anything, now you are adding things to support your argument.[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:51)][no but if it can interbreed with others dog with the same mutation then you do. and that's what happened with the whatever we were talking about.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and the mutation could just make that one plant, or one set of plants a genetic anomly not able to mate with anything, if my dog suddenly develops a mutation that prevents it from mating with teh dog down the street even though it did at one point do i suddenly have a new species of animal that has never been seen before?
no... monogomous and polygomous..[b said:Quote[/b] ]mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?
huh?[b said:Quote[/b] ]enthocentric
ooppss... therefore they have different colors.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and what did you mean by this "like blacks and whites have different genes and therefore have different genes" although they have differnt genes controlling for melanin the concept of black and white are totally culturally bound
some may be, like the voles.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and where is your basis for people being naturally monogomous?
how is being monogomous or polygomous an adaptation to the environment?[b said:Quote[/b] ]although in some enviroments humans are monogomous that does not mean that is their instinct it is a cultural adapation to the enviroment
OH! my point was that you EVOLVE. at one time we were able to mate with the ancestors of chimps but we EVOLVED and that's why we now can't... and that's why the fruit flies show evolution. Because at one point they COULD mate with them, but now they can't.[b said:Quote[/b] ]umm it was the first thing i qouted when i said that you said "says who? we can't mate with birds now did we?"
No I'm not. Read it again.[b said:Quote[/b] ]it doesnt say that, it says it produced sterile males when they tried to cross it again, it says nothing about it mating with anything, now you are adding things to support your argument.
that means that at first they could mate and have fertile offspring (population A and B) (they were the same species). Then they couldn't mate and have fertile offspring (population A and B) (same species because they themselves couldn't mate). Then they could mate within each other. (A and A and B with B) (different species because they can't mate and have fertile offspring with the species they originated from, but they can mate and have fertile offspring amongst themselves)[b said:Quote[/b] ]The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Ethnocentric= judging the values, customs, practices and beliefs of another group of people or culture by the standards of your own. or applying your values or cultural beliefs to others.[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,10:12)]no... monogomous and polygomous..[b said:Quote[/b] ]mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?
huh?[b said:Quote[/b] ]enthocentric
ooppss... therefore they have different colors.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and what did you mean by this "like blacks and whites have different genes and therefore have different genes" although they have differnt genes controlling for melanin the concept of black and white are totally culturally bound
the concept?? people have black or white skins (and many in between of course... I'm in between)... there's no concept in it... that was an example as how not everyone has the same genes, and that some people may be naturally monogomous and others may be more likely to be polygomous because of their genes.
some may be, like the voles.[b said:Quote[/b] ]and where is your basis for people being naturally monogomous?
how is being monogomous or polygomous an adaptation to the environment?[b said:Quote[/b] ]although in some enviroments humans are monogomous that does not mean that is their instinct it is a cultural adapation to the enviroment
cultures arise from the people, and the people arise from genes. You don't find people who marry when they're 2 years old.
true, culture does play a role on when you marry, but if there were no culture people would at least try to "marry" (to be politically correct ) as soon as puberty hits.
so my point is that while culture does play a role in how humans act, how humans act determines culture... and that even if you don't believe that, while culture plays a role in how humans act, humans would act certain ways without culture which is determined by genes (did that make sense?)
what does assortivie mating have to do with them being able to mate with each other, assortivie mating is making a choice of which to mate with, if crossed they should still produce offspring. actully to the fact that they are only producing males also tells me something is not right between the two specimens, unless they were producing viable female offspring, which would mean they are the same species[b said:Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,10:21)]No I'm not. Read it again.[b said:Quote[/b] ]it doesnt say that, it says it produced sterile males when they tried to cross it again, it says nothing about it mating with anything, now you are adding things to support your argument.
that means that at first they could mate and have fertile offspring (population A and B) (they were the same species). Then they couldn't mate and have fertile offspring (population A and B) (same species because they themselves couldn't mate). Then they could mate within each other. (A and A and B with B) (different species because they can't mate and have fertile offspring with the species they originated from, but they can mate and have fertile offspring amongst themselves)[b said:Quote[/b] ]The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Sorry. I thought my intent was clear from the context. You're right. Except in Star Trek, things evolve-be that to a less or more "fit" state. I was just simplifying the phrase "evolving to a less fit state" with the assumption that evolution (ultimately) leads to a more fit organism, hence devolving is the opposite.[b said:Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 22 2005,2:49)]I've never heard of de-evolution. I don't think its possible. Maybe we are evolving toward a worse state but evolution isn't a process thats reverse, it's built upon.[b said:Quote[/b] (D muscipula @ Jan. 22 2005,12:33)]I would actually go a step further and say we are devolving as a species. Almost all natural selection has been removed, both by science and by legislation. In many ways, "political correctness" is little more than the sophisticates' dictate that a person's capabilities and performance should not affect their opportunities, which seems to me to be the fast track to retrogression, both genetic and civilizational.