Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[Amateur_Expert]

Something that you guys should think about is that sexual selection is very close in tune with natural selection. Primaly, when a woman was choosing a man it chose a man that was fit for the environment they lived in (whatever that environment may be).

This can be seen everywhere within different animal species.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,1:15)]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 22 2005,7:06)]Some Archeologists have found out that the black sea was created about the same time as the Flood in the bible.  If we look at the time period (Sorry I am not sure the period nor do I remember where I read this) and the expansion of human kind the flood fits.  It would take months for the Sea to form from the part that broke between the two parts of Turkey.  Much of the known world would have been destroyed.  So that story in the bible could be true.
A_E you cannot totally get rid of any gene.

Sorry, that wasn't what i meant. I meant when a part of the species doesn't have a certain gene, that would be less fit than a new gene in the genepool other members of the species contain, it should soon die if it doesn't aquire the let's say necessary gene.

When it comes to human, it doesn't matter if one person has one gene thats advantegous over another person, because we aren't in nature and nature isn't filtering out the humans that don't have the necessary gene.

We don't have natural selection at all. Period. It's gone.

The only thing that we do have is sexual selection which is now so flexible that anyone who wants to procreate can.

first yes you can eliminate genes from the genepool if not how would evolution happen?

A_E what would you call disease then if its not natural selection? i think its pretty safe to assume that we humans have not created all the diseases out there just to see if we can eliminate a few people.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,1:18)]Something that you guys should think about is that sexual selection is very close in tune with natural selection. Primaly, when a woman was choosing a man it chose a man that was fit for the environment they lived in (whatever that environment may be).

This can be seen everywhere within different animal species.

very true, however it is differnt, because, especally with humans, the traits that are chosen are not always the most fit also often times sexual selection centers on picking individuals, not on the population as a whole as natural selection does.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:20)]first yes you can eliminate genes from the genepool if not how would evolution happen?

A_E what would you call disease then if its not natural selection? i think its pretty safe to assume that we humans have not created all the diseases out there just to see if we can eliminate a few people.

Genes don't necessarily have to be eliminated, just added on or things improved. Vestigial structures weren't eliminated because it didn't really matter if they did or not.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:23)]very true, however it is differnt, because, especally with humans, the traits that are chosen are not always the most fit also often times sexual selection centers on picking individuals, not on the population as a whole as natural selection does.

Exactly, which doesn't benefit the species.

That's what happens when woman control sexual selection.

BTW thats a joke. ::sigh:: i shouldn't of said that. Now i'll be attacked by every single woman on TF...

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,1:28)]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:20)]first yes you can eliminate genes from the genepool if not how would evolution happen?  

A_E what would you call disease then if its not natural selection? i think its pretty safe to assume that we humans have not created all the diseases out there just to see if we can eliminate a few people.

Genes don't necessarily have to be eliminated, just added on or things improved. Vestigial structures weren't eliminated because it didn't really matter if they did or not.

but they can be eliminated, or selected agasint to the point where th other genes reach a point of fixation if you need a good example take human brain size, there are no variations in it anymore(well some but nothing that affects the functionality of it) so the other possible sizes have been chosen against and teh genes that would create either larger or smaller brains have disappeared.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,1:29)]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:23)]very true, however it is differnt, because, especally with humans, the traits that are chosen are not always the most fit  also often times sexual selection centers on picking individuals, not on the population as a whole as natural selection does.

Exactly, which doesn't benefit the species.

That's what happens when woman control sexual selection.  

BTW thats a joke. ::sigh:: i shouldn't of said that. Now i'll be attacked by every single woman on TF...

you cant say that, what if the reason for chosing the mate is because it has a bennifical trait that the other dont. or sometimes its the fact that the mate has an individual appearance that is differnt from teh rest of the population, both of these could be benificial.

 

[Amateur_Expert]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:37)]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 23 2005,1:28)]

Quote[/b] (ktulu @ Jan. 22 2005,7:20)]first yes you can eliminate genes from the genepool if not how would evolution happen?

A_E what would you call disease then if its not natural selection? i think its pretty safe to assume that we humans have not created all the diseases out there just to see if we can eliminate a few people.

Genes don't necessarily have to be eliminated, just added on or things improved. Vestigial structures weren't eliminated because it didn't really matter if they did or not.

but they can be eliminated, or selected agasint to the point where th other genes reach a point of fixation if you need a good example take human brain size, there are no variations in it anymore(well some but nothing that affects the functionality of it) so the other possible sizes have been chosen against and teh genes that would create either larger or smaller brains have disappeared.

Of course they can. Anything can happen to the genotype.

 

[Treaqum]

Well the gene could still be their but recessive. It is on a strand of DNA, you cannot eliminate an intire strand. The gene which make appendixes could be on the same strand as the one that makes lungs. You do not need or use your appendix but it is still there because if that stand was eliminated you lungs would be also.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (Treaqum @ Jan. 23 2005,1:45)]Well the gene could still be their but recessive.  It is on a strand of DNA, you cannot eliminate an intire strand.  The gene which make appendixes could be on the same strand as the one that makes lungs.  You do not need or use your appendix but it is still there because if that stand was eliminated you lungs would be also.

you mean gene linked traits, and yes i never said it had to be eliminated, only that it can.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]how does skin color affect number of mates?  i dont see the connection.

me either. That wasn't the point. You're talking as if all humans were either monogomous or polygomous (at least that's how I read it) and I'm telling you that some are, some aren't.

Quote[/b] ]ok comparing voles and humans is like comparing a t-rex and a guineapig for behavior.  

no.. that's how many drugs and stuff are tested (first). by comparing humans with mice or pigs or others.

Quote[/b] ]enviroments are what  shape culture.  in many resource poor enviroments where alot(relative to other enviroments) of time, energy, and resources must be put into raising a child to reproductive age the pattern is often monogomy.
... they would likely act like most other animals and have mutliple partners or only stay monogomous for the raising of one or two offspring

yes, environment is one part, but what makes us humans are genes. (and the environment shaped our genes)
how do you know they'd act polygomous or monogomous? that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say! it's in your genes. If humans were "wild" some may be monogomous and others would be polygomous. Some humans just naturally feel the need to have more than one partner, and others don't. it depends on your genes.

Quote[/b] ]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

EXACTLY! that's why they're different species

Quote[/b] ]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

no because they mated them before and they only produced INFERTILE MALE offspring.

Quote[/b] ]Alpha, In response to WHOA!, I have always believed in evolution, but have been fair enough to study all theories about it.

what other theories? people keep talking about these other options and stuff but so far no one tells me what other options besides creationism/intelligent design there are. and I've researched/debated about creationism and so far it has absolutely no credibility in my mind.

Quote[/b] ]I do like to play The Devil's Advocate, and stir it up in hopes of stirring up your curiosity to search in other areas with an open mind, rather than one made up already. But, I have no hope that you will do it, and only consider it a bother. Too bad. Alpha, both you and AE have good minds, no matter how closed they seem to me.

what is there to be open minded about!!! you haven't stirred up curiosity because saying a supreme being made everything to me is illogical. There's nothing to be open minded about.
Yes, I've made up my mind, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to change it. Is there any reason why I sould?(change my mind... or why I shouldn't have made up my mind?) Is there any evidence for anything besides evolution? Is there any evidence AGAINST evolution? If something comes up, I'll "open" my mind, but nothing has come up. I've asked for people to give me reasons... nobody has.
Just because I don't believe that creationism has any credibility doesn't mean I'm close minded. You're the one that's looking close minded by saying that.

Quote[/b] ]In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it

exactly. and I will do that when you show me a good argument!!! I'm not close minded. (not meant for you EP)

Quote[/b] ]We don't have natural selection at all. Period. It's gone.

yes we do. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, aids, allergies, etc. all have at least something to do with genes. You can't completely cure those things. More people die if they have those things than if they don't, so natural selection is happening SLOWLY. As long as there are things that kill some humans more than others because of genes, there will be natural selection.

 

[Treaqum]

Huntingtons, Other genetic defects are all examples of natural selection. The only problem is we can keep the people alive long enough to reproduce.
Still no one has given a good argument for anything besides evolution.
Thirdly I agree with everything Alpha Wolf said in his last post

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Still no one has given a good argument for anything besides evolution.

and then they go around saying we are close minded! HMPH! You give them a chance to give you arguments against evolution/for creationism and even though nobody gives good arguments for other theories you get called close minded because you don't believe in the other theories?

If there are other theories I don't know about them so I'm not close minded anyway.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 23 2005,2:24)]

Quote[/b] ]how does skin color affect number of mates?  i dont see the connection.

me either. That wasn't the point. You're talking as if all humans were either monogomous or polygomous (at least that's how I read it) and I'm telling you that some are, some aren't.

Quote[/b] ]ok comparing voles and humans is like comparing a t-rex and a guineapig for behavior.  

no.. that's how many drugs and stuff are tested (first). by comparing humans with mice or pigs or others.

Quote[/b] ]enviroments are what  shape culture.  in many resource poor enviroments where alot(relative to other enviroments) of time, energy, and resources must be put into raising a child to reproductive age the pattern is often monogomy.
... they would likely act like most other animals and have mutliple partners or only stay monogomous for the raising of one or two offspring

yes, environment is one part, but what makes us humans are genes. (and the environment shaped our genes)
how do you know they'd act polygomous or monogomous? that's the whole point of what I'm trying to say! it's in your genes. If humans were "wild" some may be monogomous and others would be polygomous. Some humans just naturally feel the need to have more than one partner, and others don't. it depends on your genes.

Quote[/b] ]We don't have natural selection at all. Period. It's gone.

yes we do. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, aids, allergies, etc. all have at least something to do with genes. You can't completely cure those things. More people die if they have those things than if they don't, so natural selection is happening SLOWLY. As long as there are things that kill some humans more than others because of genes, there will be natural selection.

and how do you know the natural mating habbits of humans? thats what i wanna know, i mean if you say im wrong then in the same line of logic what you said about some being mongomous and some being polygoumous is equally invalid since you are making an assumtion, which im not sure what your basing it on, but anyways, so you really havent achived anything there.

second off we test drugs on other mammels to see the phyiscal effects, you can not compare vole behavior and human behavior and expect to find some conclusion about how their need to be monogomous or not, you are compare things that are just too differnt.

and the enviroment thing i was agruing that enviroments shape our culture, which in turn shapes our genes, but anyways what you said adresses what i said in no way what so ever. and the assumption of mutilple partners is based on studies done with cultures that do not have a taboo on multiple mating partners, in which it seems to be that almost everyone who is of reproductive age seeks out mating partners with teh best genes, this does not however have to be their marriage partner, which is what i was really trying to say, if left to natural processes humans will often mate with the person they see as most fit, which many times is not their mariage partner.


and for the diseases you named, you have to remember for natural selection to work it must hit you in your reproductive years, so most cancers(i know some do hit during reproductive years, but most hit later), heart disease, and late onset diabetes are not factors in natural selection.

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 23 2005,2:24)]

Quote[/b] ]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

no because they mated them before and they only produced INFERTILE MALE offspring

but how does that prove speciation this is one group that is decendent from one single female. this gives no gentic diversity, and where does it say that after they would not longer cross that they were still inter-fertile? i dont see that anywhere. im not saying this didnt happen what im saying is the evidence you have shown is insufficent, you dont seem to get that, but anyways, also what about the wild population it came from can it still breed with that, if so no speciation, since the wild populations still seem to be able to cross sucessfully.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]which im not sure what your basing it on, but anyways

sure I am. The voles.

Quote[/b] ]second off we test drugs on other mammels to see the phyiscal effects, you can not compare vole behavior and human behavior and expect to find some conclusion about how their need to be monogomous or not, you are compare things that are just too differnt.

no... voles and humans are placental mammals, have a brain, and since there are both monogomous and polygomous voles and humans (and since we evolved from common ancestors... way back when). If you were going to compare different things, like why some voles have some number of toes while others have a different number (and all humans have the same number of toes) THAT would be too different, but since we both do the same thing, you CAN compare the two.

Quote[/b] ]the assumption of mutilple partners is based on studies done with cultures that do not have a taboo on multiple mating partners, in which it seems to be that almost everyone who is of reproductive age seeks out mating partners with teh best genes, this does not however have to be their marriage partner, which is what i was really trying to say, if left to natural processes humans will often mate with the person they see as most fit, which many times is not their mariage partner.

huh?

so most cancers(i know some do hit during reproductive years, but most hit later), heart disease, and late onset diabetes are not factors in natural selection.

MOST cancers, LATE onset diabetes. There are other cancers and early onset diabetes which do hit during reproductive years, therefore ther is still natural selection.

 

[ktulu]

yeah thats what i said, i was just using those as examples of how you have to keep in mind when the diseases affect humans

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]but how does that prove speciation this is one group that is decendent from one single female. this gives no gentic diversity,

ok. The single female thing is to show that it was because of mutations. All the offspring of that female were the same species as the wild ones because the feamle was cought from the wild.

Quote[/b] ] and where does it say that after they would not longer cross that they were still inter-fertile? i dont see that anywhere.

huh?

Quote[/b] ] also what about the wild population it came from can it still breed with that, if so no speciation, since the wild populations still seem to be able to cross sucessfully

no it can't breed with the wild population! that's the whole point. When they tried to cross a lab population with the wild population, they produced INFERTILE MALES only.
who the hell cares if the wild populations are able to cross sucessfully?? that is completely irrelevant. Whole species don't evolve, populations do. The lab population became another species from the wild population.

ok... let me translate what it says.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum
[D and P. had one species become another in a laboratory. The one in the laboratory was a different species than the wild one]
sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia.
[showing that speciation wasn't because of hybrids between different subspecies. The offspring all came from the same species and what made them different species were mutations]
In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan.
[when they started, the lab population was able to have fertile offspring with the wild population, showing they were indeed the same species]
From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males.
[after a while, when the laboratory population was crossed with the wild population, the offspring were only STERILE males, showing that even though they may have been the same species, they were changing]
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).
[at first, the wild population and the lab population were able to interbreed just fine, except they didn't have fertile offspring (previous statement)... but then the lab population and the wild population did not want to mate]

so at first the lab population and the wild population were the same species. Then the lab and wild populations couldn't have fertile offspring but COULD mate. Then they could neither have fertile offspring nor could they mate.
And how do you know the lab population could mate within itself? because the experiment lasted years, the lab population only came from a single female, and if they couldn't interbreed within themselves they would have died.

understand now?

 

[ktulu]

why would you use voles for your comparison when there is are many much better canidates out there, like non-human primates. lets see i can think of only one that practices monogomy(gibbons) and they only stay together until that one offspring is raised and then they may find a new parnter. so i would say comparing voles and humans i not a very good comparison, i know lets compare humans and gnus they are both mammels, both have hair, both have brians. why not gnus?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

PS. could you quote a statement, reply, quote another statement, reply, etc. and not quote my whole post and then reply to each part of my post? It's hard to know what you're talking about if you quote my whole post.