Where does everyone stand in regards to...

[Amateur_Expert]

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.

 

[ktulu]

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.

define unfit for humans

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:39)]

Quote[/b] ]The fact that Drosophila paulistorum did at one time cross means it possible again

says who? we can't mate with birds now did we?

Quote[/b] ], and it was only like 8 years later which isnt really enough time to truely speciate

they breed fast and speciation doesn't have a time limit.

Quote[/b] ]and if the orginal specimens were still being used it is possible they mutated,

umm.... isn't that the WHOLE POINT?

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.

ok... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....tes_ex3
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.

what birds?

what are you trying to say here.


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?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]It does matter that its culturally based, since it is imposing something that goes against hte instincts that humans have

not all humans have the same instincts. Some humans are mono and others are poly.

Quote[/b] ]and what cultural features have a basis in genes?

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)

Quote[/b] ]but back to my point the most important thing to consider about monogomy is the fact that it is imposed by culture.

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.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]some people that would normally be considered "unfit" can still be married and produce offspring, halts evolution.

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.

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 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.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]what birds? what are you trying to say here.

huh? when did I mention birds? the clink sends you to pictures of hominid skulls... doesn't it? it does for me...

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:48)]

Quote[/b] ]It does matter that its culturally based, since it is imposing something that goes against hte instincts that humans have

not all humans have the same instincts. Some humans are mono and others are poly.

Quote[/b] ]and what cultural features have a basis in genes?

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)

Quote[/b] ]but back to my point the most important thing to consider about monogomy is the fact that it is imposed by culture.  

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.

mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?


Ok the men and women thing is about the most enthocentric thing you could have said. and although there are still differnces between men and womens brains that is not cultural its genetic, 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

and where is your basis for people being naturally monogomous? i am yet to see anything that proves that, although in some enviroments humans are monogomous that does not mean that is their instinct it is a cultural adapation to the enviroment

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:52)]

Quote[/b] ]what birds? what are you trying to say here.

huh? when did I mention birds? the clink sends you to pictures of hominid skulls... doesn't it? it does for me...

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?"

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,9:51)][

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 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.

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.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?

no... monogomous and polygomous..

Quote[/b] ]enthocentric

huh?

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

ooppss... therefore they have different colors.
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.

Quote[/b] ]and where is your basis for people being naturally monogomous?

some may be, like the voles.

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

how is being monogomous or polygomous an adaptation to the environment?
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?)

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

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?"

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.

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.

No I'm not. Read it again.

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).

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)

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,10:12)]

Quote[/b] ]mono? poly? are you speaking of religions here? did you mean monothesistic and polythesistic or what?

no... monogomous and polygomous..

Quote[/b] ]enthocentric

huh?

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

ooppss... therefore they have different colors.
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.

Quote[/b] ]and where is your basis for people being naturally monogomous?

some may be, like the voles.

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

how is being monogomous or polygomous an adaptation to the environment?
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?)

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.

how does skin color affect number of mates? i dont see the connection. and so you know there is greater variability of skin color with in the groups that humans have assigned than there is between the groups, so it is a cultural construct.

ok comparing voles and humans is like comparing a t-rex and a guineapig for behavior.

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.

and actully without culture humans would never marry they would likely act like most other animals and have mutliple partners or only stay monogomous for the raising of one or two offspring

 

[ktulu]

Quote[/b] (TheAlphaWolf @ Jan. 22 2005,10:21)]

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.

No I'm not. Read it again.

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).

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)

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

 

[Finch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

 

[D muscipula]

Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ Jan. 22 2005,2:49)]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ktulu]

first off finch that site has some inaccuracy so im not too inclined to accept it, also what was your point in posting it, i know about human ancestors i have studied them what were you trying to show there?

 

[Finch]

dern vandals got to it again

 

[ktulu]

vandels? no actully they just need to research their information before they jump to a conclusion

 

[Finch]

VAndals. click the edit button and you can type anything you want. last i checked it was factual but whoever edited it changed some info_

 

[Bugweed]

Alpha, In response to WHOA!, I have always believed in evolution, but have been fair enough to study all theories about it. I do find some things in other ideas that do compliment the evolution theory, that is why I say study it all, and you will be suprised at what you learn. Maybe shocked. But, I won't bet money that you will ever bother to look elsewhere. You're attitude comes across as "I already know all I want to, and it IS the answer." Sorry! No it isn't. Until you look at all of it, you cannot say with authority that it is the answer. However, you do make a lot of sense, and your arguments are interesting as well. 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. I support evolution theory, and still wish you could lose the closed minds. At least, my friends, they seem pretty closed to me. Keep going Alpha, AE, make'em think!!! (Be kind, Be nice!)