Questions for our American friends

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

And do remember, its not just humans. Think of the billions and billions of animals humans need (cattle, pigs, chickens, etc.)

Really want to worry about something? Worry about an out of control human population. We have some of the same traits as lemmings.

https://xkcd.com/1338/

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Um, that's not right at all. Evolution has a great deal to do with survival, and Darwin himself used the term "survival of the fittest" (though it was first used by Herbert Spencer).

Actually yeah. No one accepts Darwinism who knows science. It is akin to suggesting that Freud is prominent in psychology. Darwin and Wallace raised some radical theories but it is old news and what is the common core of Origin Of The Species is not even taught in universities except in the Arts division, (at least at the university that I am involved with). Survival of the fittest speaks more to what was considered as the rational construct but in fact science has demonstrated that the premise is only a stand alone partially valid concept. There are times where survival of the fittest works but for anyone who actually knows anything about genetics and evolutionary biology that is merely one aspect. People like that term because it fits the Ayn Rand theorem and it is simple. But evolution is so much more complex than just merely fittest.

What is fittest? It depends and at times in certain situations fittest changes. You have to remember that 90% of all of our genes are either benign or rare expressive and even those in the lineage of evolution still express themselves just by chance and environment either helps, hinders or is irrelevant.

I am a little surprised to find that you would hold such a colloquial view on evolution?

Originally Posted by deepsepia

I think you're blaming Darwin for the failings of the "Social Darwinists" -- which is hardly his fault.

No... he didn't fully understand what he was trying to express. He admitted it. I hold no animosity to Darwin but rather to those who hold onto a superficial understanding of the actuality of evolution versus what it appears to be. Darwin like Larmarck were pioneers of evolution much like Lockheed was a pioneer of flight even though he didn't really understand the physics behind what was his success.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

There is no "failure" in Darwin, and indeed he has theories of both natural and sexual selection, a very important point. Darwin saw clearly the complex interplay of reproductive and fitness pressures, a fantastically complex array of forces-- some selecting animals that are more functionally capable, others which are simply more attractive to potential mates.

And this is exactly why he was wrong... well aside from sexual dimorphism which he fully admitted he could not find an adequate explanation for... because there is so much more to evolution than this parochial view. What you describe here is exactly the issue at hand. This idea that there is a direct response such a you say 'more attractive mates' or 'functionally capable' is only just the cusp. Humanity exists because of a fat rat like critter than was just too small and ornery for the raptors to wipe out. Like I said a set of cicada like bugs will live despite global warming because those that were 'failures' and born too soon are now in the sweet zone while the previous 'winners' die because it is too hot for their birth.

None of that speaks to the high level approach that you believe is true.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Its an astonishing achievement. Its worth pausing to recall that Alfred Russell Wallace, at precisely the same time, and based on very similar evidence, came up with a very similar theory of natural selection and a somewhat different theory of sexual selection.

And welcome to 1% of the solution. Mammoth to elephant. Tens of thousands of years. The cold virus that got you sick versus the cold virus that you gave your spouse is a new species. All part of evolution and actually 99% of what happens. We like to think of evolution as that which we can see, which is what Darwin, Wallace and Lamark, plus other contemporaries who in fact did far more, spoke of but they did not have the ability, technology or insight to see the whole picture. Large species differentiation is what we like to see because it makes sense to us. Megladon to Great White Shark is such an example but lost to us in context because it took hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile the majority of evolution is happening at the micro level but in our hubris we ignore it because what possible value are procaryote and eurcaryote evolutionary synthesis when the Panda is the WWF symbol?

I never suggested that Darwin was stupid. He was a risk taker who only by fluke wound up on the Beagle. But his theory is utterly flawed and just plain wrong. Einstein had the same failure.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

For a good (and commendably brief) look at the subject see:
"A Skeptic's Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...misunderstood/

I have read this before. It is not wrong but it is akin to providing a model that suggests that all that is needed to make a car work is to put gas in it and then start the car and put it in gear... all the while ignoring that 20,000 parts are all doing their little effort to make it all happen.

The main aspect of this article that is of value is the concept that evolution is not about a direct action. It does not explain it very well because the concept is not easy. It is all about coincidence. Pigeons in England were always white and black so when the industrial revolution occurred it wasn't as if the pigeons turned black in response but rather that there had always been black pigeons who were easily preyed upon and then years later their colour was a natural camouflage. What you seem to miss and this article is that even though this phenotype was a failure for thousands of years it found its niche in the 18th century. Nothing of the time made that trait start... it had always existed.

This is where the utter failure of Darwinism comes to be. There is no comprehension or understanding to explain WHY this happens.

Not to worry though. People accept evolution for good reasons but they really don't understand it and that is fine. It is very complicated.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by palo5

It's possible I wasn't paying attention, but did he have a theory about animals that are not capable of procreation because they do it with the same gender? Did he have an explanation for that?

Do Americans think about it?

Sexual dimorphism.

'Nuff said.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by DTravel

No, it just means that Homo Sapiens is evolving to better fit its current environment. The species' ability to alter the environment doesn't "stop" evolution, its just another factor in it.

Uh... no.

Tell me how people are more likely to reproduce given one trait versus another?

Our evolution has been limited to dietary improvements and to some extent breeding with more variant genetic pools.

But no we are not really evolving anymore because no one dies due to genetic failures that are not life endangering.

[Tarkus666]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Comrade Palo asked:


I'm in an obliging mood so I thought about giraffes.
From wikipedia:


From Gladiator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obel7Iu1hik

Nice pics of giraffes which I enjoyed.

Utterly meaningless with respect to evolution.

You kind of need to understand how evolution works before making unfounded correlations.

Pretty pics though.

[JJ3027]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

JJ3027,

No, you don't blame the majority. But the problem is, who's the majority? Answers from a minority and a white person in the US would be completely different.

Please tell me how this militarization is saving money for anyone? Especially the taxpayer (who are really paying for all this)?

Gee, the prisons are full of all kinds of black and brown people claiming the exact same thing.

What I meant by majority was you don't say 500,000+ police (or any group) are bad for what a very small % of them that are idiots. As for the equipment, more and more the cops are coming up against bad guys with full auto assault rifles and bullet-proof vests (some of these bad guys are ex-military), that forces the police departments to arm their patrol men with the same. If they can obtain equipment from the military for cheap, they save money. And as for your comment on the US prison population - http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Uh... no.

Tell me how people are more likely to reproduce given one trait versus another?

Our evolution has been limited to dietary improvements and to some extent breeding with more variant genetic pools.

But no we are not really evolving anymore because no one dies due to genetic failures that are not life endangering.

So no one starves to death because they can't hold a job due to a genetic predisposition to drug addiction/alcoholism? No one fails to have offspring because they can't attract a mate?

Your definition of evolution seems excessively narrow to me.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Tarkus666

Uh... no.

Tell me how people are more likely to reproduce given one trait versus another?

Our evolution has been limited to dietary improvements and to some extent breeding with more variant genetic pools.

But no we are not really evolving anymore because no one dies due to genetic failures that are not life endangering.

Not true.

While its always been easier to spot novel deleterious mutations -- 'cause they make people get sick and die, like Tay-Sachs for example-- researchers are now identifying novel mutations in historical time which have lead to fitness advantages. Here are five of them:

1) Adult lactose metabolism -- emerges in Northern Europe/Baltics sometime in the last 10,000 years, makes possible dairy culture.

2) Hypocholesterolemia/longevity syndrome "Apolipoprotein A-1 Milan"; oh, god this is the mutation I want. Known from a community in Northern Italy, these folks metabolize fats better than anyone else. They eat what they please and don't get atherosclerosis or heart attacks.

3) "Human Performance Genes" -- a number of genes have been found that improve cardiac perfomance. Notably nearly all folks achieving high altitude ascents (6000 meter mountains) have these genes.

4) Arsenic chelation-- Just discovered in the Andes, this mutation allows folks living in the Atacama desert to tolerate levels of arsenic in the water that would kill anyone else. Allows them to live in these areas where freshwater contains lots of arsenic where no one else can.

5) CCR5-Δ32 -- appears to have become prevalent in the last two thousand years in Europe, perhaps in response to plague. This is a deletion mutant, which eliminates part of the CCR5 receptor, which is used by the HIV virus in the process of entering cells. Folks who are homozygous (two copies of this variant) are essentially immune to HIV infection.

We are just scratching the surface, because a genetic variation that is neutral or improves some function hasn't been likely to come to medical attention. With cheap whole genome sequencing, though, that is changing as we speak.

We can say with confidence that given the large numbers of humans, the novel environmental exposures and the historically novel ways that we're breeding, we will be hearing a lot of reports of novel human variations. Most will have negative effects, but some will be positive.

[DTravel]

My brain slapped itself in the back of my head after I logged off yesterday because I forgot an even simpler example of human evolution in modern times. Sperm banks, artifical insemination, birth control and abortion. Does anyone believe those are having ZERO impact on the number and genetic makeup of human offspring?

[9876543210]

JJ3027,

Originally Posted by JJ3027

What I meant by majority was you don't say 500,000+ police (or any group) are bad for what a very small % of them that are idiots.

What percentage of cops are idiots? I don't know. All I do know is that a minority's answer to that question will be much higher than an answer from a white person. Don't think too many people would argue that point.

As for the equipment, more and more the cops are coming up against bad guys with full auto assault rifles and bullet-proof vests (some of these bad guys are ex-military), that forces the police departments to arm their patrol men with the same.

I know that happens (the shootout in Hollywood years ago comes to mind) but I don't think that happens all that often. But, again, what I do know is that none of these minorities this has happened to had those kind of weapons or armor. The nine year old kid had a pellet gun and the guy in Tulsa had some type of weapon but I've seen nothing to suggest he pointed it at anyone. I just saw him trying to run away. None of the others had any weapons.

If they can obtain equipment from the military for cheap, they save money.

Again, something is not cheap if you have no need for it. And if its my money your spending then I say you don't need it. No money is being saved (at least out of my pocket).

And as for your comment on the US prison population - http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

Interesting numbers. Just the highlights.

Percentage of US Prison Population
White 59%
Black 37.6%
Native 1.9%

Percentage of US Population (2013)
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...raceethnicity/

White 62%
Black 12%
Native 0.5%*

So, a quick comparison shows the white populations are about the same. But the black and native populations? A bit of a disparity.

*Native population not shown at link. But 0.5% is generally regarded as a high number and would include everybody saying they have Indian ancestry. Most researchers believe the actual number of American Indians with at least 25% blood is about 0.1% or less. Most nations do not recognize people with less than 25% blood quantum.