Scary news

[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Hello, mutation (or evolution) ain't never gonna lead to a sex change, nor will it  lead to an increased population of one sex as compared to the other.[/quote]

Evolution could certainly result in an increased population of one sex. And if frogs have the ability to change sex, then that characteristic is a result of evolution.

I assume you mean that, under current conditions, evolution won't change the human male:female ratio and won't result in humans having innate sex-change abilities. Fine. That's one specific example, and does not reflect what evolution can or can't do.


[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Anyway, most scientists think that the process of evolution has come to a stand-still due to various factors affecting our enviornmental conditions, including human activities.[/quote]

I'm talking about the abstract concept of evolution. The current state of evolution as we know it doesn't matter.
 
What I find interesting is that, until the population explosion of the last 250 years, our population was kept low because of the amount of men simply killing each other. Consider that the greatest nation of ancient times by terms of population (Rome) had less than 100 million people at it's height, whereas it took up a massive area.

Monogamy and the male military service were mostly responsible for this. While the rich were polygamous in Roman society, the majority of the population was the poor; they were the ones who went out and died for the Empire. Survival chances were 50/50. Yes, you didn't have to become a soldier in Rome. But a lot of fit young men did, and a lot didn't come home.

Even recently, men been massively killing each other. Consider the case of the Soviet Union in the first part of the 20th Century. Estimates vary widely, but a hell of a lot of people died in that country from 1900-1950.

500,000 in the Russo-Japanese War.
1,000,000 in the 1907 Revolution.
3,000,000 combat deaths in WW1.
1,000,000 civilian deaths from WW1 economic costs.
2,000,000 from the 1917 Revolution.
10,000,000 during the Soviet Civil War.
10,000,000 during the first Five Year Plan.
5,000,000 during the second Five Year Plan.
12,000,000 combat deaths during WW2.
12,000,000 civilian deaths during WW2.

55,500,000 total.

Keep in mind that those figures are estimates...usually low (especially in the case of the 1917-39 deaths, the Soviets weren't so good at keeping records on how many people their policies/secret police murdered).

But around 2/3rds total were men, mostly because of all the combat deaths.

HOWEVER!

The ratio in Russia balanced out by the 1980s, to be within 5% of a 50:50 split. Whether or not this just means that people were dying out, and the younger generation was balanced, or more men are born naturally, or something...I don't know. I'm not a freakin' biologist! I just thought I'd give food for thought...

Mm. Food.
 
Just another note (and hope that'll be my last one!): evolution has NOT come to a standstill, whatever the reasons invoked.

A simple example amongs others is the average height of human individuals. People are taller (as an average!) nowadays than, say, even as close as 20 years ago! This is to me similar to the first human primates reaching the standing posture (that also influenced brain development as compared to our cousins who kept favouring 4-legged locomotion).


Please don't force me to intervene more in this debate, I have very little time to spare! [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Maverick+Jul 22 2004, 04:32 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Maverick @ Jul 22 2004, 04:32 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] A simple example amongs others is the average height of human individuals. People are taller (as an average!) nowadays than, say, even as close as 20 years ago! This is to me similar to the first human primates reaching the standing posture (that also influenced brain development as compared to our cousins who kept favouring 4-legged locomotion). [/quote]
Mav, with all due respect, I can't see how our being taller will ensure our better survival rate in today's world. This assertion of yours gives the idea that shorter people must be prone to extinction for some reason. I don't get it.. what, does America hate them or something? Anyway, my knowledge in this area is very limited. You don't have to intervine if you don't want to. [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-abhi+Jul 22 2004, 05:42 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(abhi @ Jul 22 2004, 05:42 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Mav, with all due respect, I can't see how our being taller will ensure our better survival rate in today's world. This assertion of yours gives the idea that shorter people must be prone to extinction for some reason. I don't get it.. what, does America hate them or something? Anyway, my knowledge in this area is very limited. You don't have to intervine if you don't want to. [!--emo&;)--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/wink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'wink.gif\' /][!--endemo--] [/quote]
Doesn't have to be survival rate. It could be reproductive rate. If members of the opposite sex find taller partnners more attractive than shorter ones, then that would suggest taller people are going to be slightly better at making more of themselves.

Compare peacock tails.


(I'm not claiming that's the reason... just a possible one).
 
[!--QuoteBegin-chipperMDW+Jul 22 2004, 07:23 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(chipperMDW @ Jul 22 2004, 07:23 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Doesn't have to be survival rate. It could be reproductive rate. If members of the opposite sex find taller partnners more attractive than shorter ones, then that would suggest taller people are going to be slightly better at making more of themselves.

Compare peacock tails.


(I'm not claiming that's the reason... just a possible one). [/quote]
Makes a lot of sense. One problem though- if we assume that in today's world, humans have offsprings only with one spouse in a lifetime on a great extent.. then this must mean that if you end up with a tall person, someone else is bound to do so with a short one. He'll(she'll) have offsprings with them who will be more on the shorter side.

So, unlike most animals, who have no sense of civilization, humans mate with a much lesser number of individuals in their lifetime, and lesser still do they have babies with (usually only one). In that case, the "taller people will make more of themselves" theory breaks down. Anything more convincing?
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Jul 22 2004, 08:43 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Jul 22 2004, 08:43 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] What I find interesting is that, until the population explosion of the last 250 years, our population was kept low because of the amount of men simply killing each other. [/quote]
I don't deny that war has had a remarkable effect on world population, but it's not the number one factor at all. Infant/child mortality rate and average family size are the biggest factors. The reason(s) that world population began booming a couple hundred years ago:

a. Because the vast majority of the human population lived and worked on farms, it was traditional to have a lot of kids, in part to help on the farm.
b. It was also commonplace for many of the children to die before reaching age 12; mortality rates of 30% were common, and 50% wasn't unheard of. These rates were about 20% lower for the much smaller number of urban children.
c. The main cause of death was disease or industrial accidents.
d. As time went on, the population moved to urban centers, medical science and health care improved, and child labor laws kept the accidents to adults. The result was a drop in child mortality to 10% or less.
e. But people kept on having big families because it was traditional. And I mean big: 10 or more children was commonplace.
f. It's only been in the last 40-50 years that European/US families have gotten smaller. That (along with Chinese infanticide) has caused world population growth to slow somewhat, although India and Africa still have high growth rates.

Sure war counts, but you're overestimating its impact.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-abhi+Jul 23 2004, 07:38 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(abhi @ Jul 23 2004, 07:38 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Makes a lot of sense. One problem though- if we assume that in today's world, humans have offsprings only with one spouse in a lifetime on a great extent.. then this must mean that if you end up with a tall person, someone else is bound to do so with a short one. He'll(she'll) have offsprings with them who will be more on the shorter side.

So, unlike most animals, who have no sense of civilization, humans mate with a much lesser number of individuals in their lifetime, and lesser still do they have babies with (usually only one). In that case, the "taller people will make more of themselves" theory breaks down. Anything more convincing? [/quote]
Perhaps the tallest people get chosen as mates soonest. Then, they have a chance to start reproducing earlier, meaning if they do survive, they might have more offspring, and if they don't survive, they will have had a chance to make at least some offspring. A shorter person might have less time to produce children or be more likely to die before having any.

Perhaps it's something seemingly unrelated; the protiens that make you tall might serve a double purpose and also increase your fertility.

(Again, there's no reason to believe any of that is actually the case... all hypothetical.)


Any reproductive advantage (however slight) that height provides would eventually result in an increase in taller people (provided it wasn't outweighed by a disadvantage imposed by height).
 
Well,in the way you guys put it, it seems that changing skin colour would be evolution 'cause women would be more atracted to whiter or yellower skin [!--emo&:blink:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--] .And that's just not true.That's adaptation,not evolution. A HUGE difference

Maybe height might be different,i don't know. But i think it's not. It's adaptation,me thinks [!--emo&:blush:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blush.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blush.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Black Ace+Jul 28 2004, 09:28 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Jul 28 2004, 09:28 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] That's adaptation,not evolution. A HUGE difference [/quote]
Adaptation is a change by a single organism during its own lifetime. It has nothing to do with DNA.

Evolution is a process by which naturally advantageous DNA comes to be prevalent in a population over the course of several generations.

Black Ace, if I am reading your post correctly, you are hypothesizing that if most women were attracted to mates with lighter skin, then over several generations human skin color would tend to get lighter as a result. That is evolution - not adaptation as you said.
 
Changing colour of the skin is the result of climate and envoirment changes, not because female's are more atracted to lighter skin mates,and if you say that this is evolution,than you agree with the nazis the the arians are a superior race

IMO
 
Sorry to intervene again... [!--emo&:unsure:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/unsure.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'unsure.gif\' /][!--endemo--]


There are no races within the human species. (I thought it'd be helpful to point this out... [!--emo&:blush:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blush.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blush.gif\' /][!--endemo--] )
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Black Ace+Jul 29 2004, 11:34 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Jul 29 2004, 11:34 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Changing colour of the skin is the result of climate and envoirment changes, not because female's are more atracted to lighter skin mates,and if you say that this is evolution,than you agree with the nazis the the arians are a superior race
[/quote]
Climate and environment change is one thng that drives evolution. So is mate selection. In general, any characteristic that helps you survive long enough to reproduce, to reproduce successfully, or to ensure the same of your offspring would be a selective advantage.

Claiming that a certain characteristic is more favored than another in a given environment is not racism or Naziism. In the case of skin, darker skin provides more protection from the sun than lighter skin, but it takes more energy to create the pigment (I assume on that last point; I may be wrong, but just roll with it). In environments with high exposure to the sun, it would be more advantageous for humans who develop more pigment; in areas without such exposure, it would be more advantageous to humans who don't put energy into creating a lot of pigment that provides them no advantage. The climate and environment might thus cause the two poulations to have changes in the average frequencies of their alleles (an allele is a specific "value" of a gene). This would indeed be evolution.

Neither "race" thus produced would be considered superior. Each would simply be better suited for a certain environment than the other.

Compare dogs: dogs with long hair are better-suited for cold climates; dogs with short hair are better suited for warmer climates. Neither kind is claimed to be the better dog overall.

Now, if one were to claim that dark skin is a sign of an evil soul, and that the purest humans alive were the whitest ones, then that person would be deserving of the title "Nazi" or "Hitler."

It is not racism to acknowledge physical differences between populations (even among humans), or even to speculate scientifically on what might have caused those differences. Speculating that there was a change in skin pigmentation in some population due to the mating preferences of the females would not be racism. You might be able to say that there is no evidence to back that claim up, but you can't call it racist.

You might want to reread the definition of evolution (try a Biology book if you want) and see which part you're missing; it seems like you're missing something or have misunderstood something.


Whether or not races exist within our species is debatable and depends on the exact definition of "race" being used. With the biological definition... probably not, but I don't study people.
 
[!--emo&:bow:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/bowdown.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'bowdown.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
your clearly intellectual post has blown me away throught its complexity [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
Ok, sorry to revive a long dead topic, but what do you guys have to say about global warimng? i want to see your oppinions first, before post my own oppinion
 
I think eventually the damned ice caps will melt and all of humanity will drown. then the animals can live in a nice balanced peace once more. but i dont think this will happen for a very long time. Sorry animals.
 
Global warming is not a good thing. When the temperatures increasse because of greenhouse gasses. More water to precipitation into to the atmosphere as well, including our water supplies. So we might die of lack of water before we drown. We could also get more storms as well which would not be good. Including huricans, which could go on for days. That would mean flattened cities.
 
Allright, I see not many have taken interest in this topic anymore. Here's what I think. Some time ago, I was interested in nordic mythology. The vikings believed that the wold as they knew it was sorrounded at the north by ice and at the south by fire.This was concluded after their maritime experience, which brought them as south as the medditeranean sea, and far up north.

The interesting part is that they thought that the world had cycles( not like periods) and at the end of each cycle, the balance between the two great powers of heat and cold is disturbed and the two powers destroy the world and all that is on it. And a new circle begins.

SOme time after researching global; warming, i found similarities. What the vikings predicted is happening. The delicate ballance has been shattered by overpolluting pricks, that only care for a quick buck, and by our own indifference.
My oppinion [!--emo&:blush:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blush.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blush.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top