Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evolution Extinct

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by eldrick
    guaranteeing a constant supply of quality meat - fuelling a big increase in brain size & separating us finally from the chimps
    increase in brain size from higher protein intake is evolution
    I'm having a hard time buying that. I see how more protein leads to a larger phyical brain size, but I fail to see how that increases our SIQ (Survivabilty Intelligence Quotient). Those humanoids who were smarter survived better, and led us down the path to Homo Sapiens. I'm assuming they all grew brain-size at the same time. Or are you saying the smarter ones are the ones who domesticated animals, ate more protein, grew bigger brains and continued the cycle?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Marlow
      Or are you saying the smarter ones are the ones who domesticated animals, ate more protein, grew bigger brains and continued the cycle?
      That sounds good.

      I'd imagine the "herders" survived better anyways, beacause they had a better, more reliable food source & eventually the hunter-gatherers either joined them or fizzled out. The herders probably also developed increasingly large communities who probably dominated the isolated hunter-gatherers both mentally & thru weight of numbers ( may even have exterminated them ?! )

      Worth adding that the better protein intake not only gives them bigger brains but bigger bodies ( high quality meat on regular basis ) so they were likely physically stronger as well.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by Pego
        It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.
        If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.
        We don't know that for a certainty, of course.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gh
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by Pego
          It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.
          If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.
          We don't know that for a certainty, of course.
          Taking Pego's Third Rule, we know it's not evolution that has caused the changes - to what else may we attribute it? The change in the last 1000 years HAS been substantial.

          Originally posted by Pego
          3. It takes many generations (longer than the Homo Sapiens existence) to actually see a substantial change.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Marlow
            Or are you saying the smarter ones are the ones who domesticated animals, ate more protein, grew bigger brains and continued the cycle?
            And created merchant economies, wars, famine and pandemic diseases - all of which contributed to the upscaling ( and culling) of the human species. Probably a bigger leap than domestication and agriculture.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by gh
              Originally posted by Marlow
              Originally posted by Pego
              It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.
              If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.
              We don't know that for a certainty, of course.
              Taking Pego's Third Rule, we know it's not evolution that has caused the changes - to what else may we attribute it? The change in the last 1000 years HAS been substantial.

              Originally posted by Pego
              3. It takes many generations (longer than the Homo Sapiens existence) to actually see a substantial change.
              I said "significant". Like Daisy's woman a few posts above.
              The ones you mentioned earlier are minute evolutionary changes, no need to speculate for some "hidden attribute".

              Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .
              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
              by Thomas Henry Huxley

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pego
                Sorry, Daisy's woman is gone. I guess, it was copyrighted. Most participants of this thread have likely seen it .
                It took me a while to try and figure this out. i think you mean Mennisco's woman.

                Recently, I mentioned lactase persistence and here it an appropriate time to bring it up again. Just one example of an evolutionary change that has happened recently in some populations. Possibly not that dramatic, but important enough that it has become very dominant in some (herding) cultures. Who knows what other mutations are out there in the population just waiting for selection, or have already been selected, unknown to us.

                To go back to Jones' premise that there are less mutations out there than there used to be. I suspect this is absolutely wrong given the number of chemicals out there in the environment and the larger number of births per day than ever before. As malmo pointed out, the lack of a few good panedmic recently is likely to be a bigger cause for any stagnation than a decrease in the number of mutants. Jones also suggests that recent medical success means that certain mutations are no longer purged, but this will increase genetic diversity meaning that when the next big environmental change does occur there will be more genetic diversity to challenge. That might be the difference between evolving and going extinct.

                Comment


                • #23
                  With some simplification, evolution has two components:

                  1. Genetic changes (including mutations, but also ``gen drift'' and similar
                  phenomena).

                  2. Survival and reproduction of the fittest (for some meaning of ``fit'').

                  The overall effect on 1. is probably comparatively small, although we are
                  almost certainly moving towards greater homogenity, and we miss the
                  opportunities from population diversification.

                  The big issue is 2.: In the current society, highly intelligent people are
                  often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
                  to have more. The former tend to reproduce at a greater age than the latter,
                  leading to longer generations. Medical care removes the disadvantages of poor
                  health (including areas like eye sight). People who would have been beggars
                  with little hope at reproduction, can now live semi-comfortable lifes supported
                  by the state (at least in e.g. Germany and Sweden). Etc.

                  All things considered, we should consider ourselves happy, if evolution does
                  not cause a degeneration of humankind.

                  (I stress that I do not necessarily consider medical care and public support of
                  the less fortunate to be a bad thing. They do, however, have negative
                  side-effects in this particular area.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by imaginative
                    In the current society, highly intelligent people are
                    often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
                    to have more.
                    I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      Originally posted by imaginative
                      In the current society, highly intelligent people are
                      often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
                      to have more.
                      I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.
                      The statistics I have seen from various sources seem to make that claim (cf.
                      e.g. ``The Bell Curve''). Further, based on the people I have known in person
                      over the years, I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative
                      correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.

                      I would, however, be happy to be wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by imaginative
                        I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.
                        But does level of education equal intelligence?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by imaginative
                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          Originally posted by imaginative
                          In the current society, highly intelligent people are
                          often content with no children at all, or just the one; the unintelligent tend
                          to have more.
                          I'm not sure I buy this phenotype of intelligence.
                          The statistics I have seen from various sources seem to make that claim (cf.
                          e.g. ``The Bell Curve''). Further, based on the people I have known in person
                          over the years, I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative
                          correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.

                          I would, however, be happy to be wrong.
                          The fact that people with big brains chose not to make messy little need machines comes of no surprise to me.

                          You spend 18 years nurturing them to maturity and your reward........they hate you.
                          phsstt!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                            ........they hate you.
                            Not all the time. Sometimes they want your money.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Daisy
                              Originally posted by imaginative
                              I see a strong (albeit statistically uncertain) negative correlation between intelligence/level of education and the number of children.
                              But does level of education equal intelligence?
                              Under no circumstances: There are bright people who dropped out of college; I
                              have seen a number of post-graduates that I would consider depressingly stupid.
                              However, there is still a strong correlation, and the average Ph.D. is more
                              intelligent than the average Master of X, who in turn is more intelligent than
                              the average bachelor, and so on.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                How about in countries where very few people get a formal education? Maybe the intelligent have bigger families under such circumstances?

                                More kids to look after you when you're old. More kids to help you grow/earn food etc.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X