View Full Version : How did the different human races evolve?


Balder1
01-26-03, 02:00 AM
Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, especially as far as the skin pigment is concerned. Does black skin really help well enough for the black people to generally evolve it based on natural selection?
As in the people with darker skin generally survived and reproduced more while lighter skin people gradually. One fluke person has a bit blacker skin than the rest, and as a result he survives way better?:bugeye:

This seems to suggest to me that our evolution is not only affected by natural selection, but also by the environment. Somehow the DNA for pigment makes the skin blacker and blacker because of the amount of sun its getting. I haven't heard of any of this, so I'm curious about how it happened.

While we're on this subject, how long do homo sapiens as we know them date back to?

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 10:46 AM
Actual it worked like this: Black people immigrated north, suffer massive Vitamin D deficiency, those with lest melanin (lighter skin) were render healthier and more fertile: so in the end the further north you go the lighter peoples skin. As people move back to southern climates (the Native Americans for example: from Alaska to South America) the reverse becomes effective and darker skin is needed to prevent an overdose of vitamin D and skin burning as well. Today with modern diet and sunscreen vitamin D levels are easily controlled artificially and skin color is redundant. Though with the ozone going out and all it is best to be darker :D

The process of evolution being affected by the environment is natural selection!

Mitochondria DNA puts humans at about 600,000 years old.

Neville
01-26-03, 12:12 PM
Well cooked foetus is right! I didnt know about the immigration north but i did know that those people with lighter skin are more likely to develop cancer (probably of the skin) because of the strength of the suns rays in that part of the world. Only the strongest will survive (also the name of a song by Hurricane No.1) :D

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 01:00 PM
Actually cancer risks and skin damage does not have the kind of fatality qualities to kill someone before they breed. Vitamin D though has been linked with fertility and the ability of a women carry a child. Too much are to little vitamin D can have very bad side effects on fetal development and miscarriage rates. People with the appropriate skin color for their latitude had a low miscarriage rate, higher survival rate in childbirth and higher birth weights over those that had inappropriate skin color for that latitude. Unfortunate (or fortunately) modern clothing and diet have ruined and override thousands of years of evolutions skin tone tweaking work.

lixluke
01-26-03, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Actual it worked like this: Black people immigrated north, suffer massive Vitamin D deficiency, those with lest melanin (lighter skin)
but that doesnt rely answer the question bcos how did those w lest melanin get lest melanin in the first place?

John Mace
01-26-03, 01:49 PM
Fetus:

You got it right about skin color. That's the prevailing theory, and while it seems to make sense. Especially since the earlies sapiens found are in Africa.

On the issue of when sapiens evolved you are way off. Firstly, this is not like physics where you can drop a ball and measure the gravitational force and everyone agrees. There are competing theories out there.

The dominant theory (called Out of Africa) holds that Homo sapiens (us) evolved in Africa about 150k yrs ago. There are fossils that are sometimes called "archaeic sapiens" that go back farther, but that's really a way of saying we don't quite know where they fit in. mtDNA agrees pretty much with the date of 150k yrs ago. Check out books by Ian Tattersall for a good description of this.

Some Out of Africa folks would argue that we evolved physically by about 150k yrs ago, but that our unique language and mental ability did not arise until as recently as 50-70k yrs ago (when you start seeing cave paintings and the like). This is a lot harder to prove than just looking at physical features.

The minority view, called the Multiregional Hypothesis, states that spaiens evolved all over the world at the same time from earlier forms of Homo. That we've basically been one species for the last ~2M yrs. Homo Erectus in Asia, Home Neanderthalenis in Europe, and Homo Ergastor in Africa all were really the same species that interbred and evolved into us. Check out books by Milford Wolpoff on this theory.

Not sure exactly how things stand right now, but I'd say it's at least 9 out of 10 anthropologist who would subscribe to the Out of Africa theory. Wolpoff doesn't have a lot of support, but he's pretty passionate on his views so I don't see him giving up any time soon.

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 02:09 PM
All I said was "Mitochondria DNA puts humans at about 600,000 years old." that was just the tip of the ice burg and I did not want to go into when the first homo sapiens appeared because freakily no one agrees and no one knows.

Melanin levels very from simple mutations that control the efficiency of melanin production. Such mutations are usually single nucleotide variations: This means that such mutations happen easily and often. Others multi-nucleotide mutations have much harsher effects on whole pigment Opterons causing freckling, Red hair and albinos.

John Mace
01-26-03, 05:01 PM
I'm unfamiliar with anything significant associated with the 600k yr date. Any book on human evolution written in the last 10yrs will outline the 2 theories I discussed. Those are really the only ones out there with any significant backing.

Out of curiousity, do you equate "humans" with Homo sapiens? I was assuming you did, since the OP asked specifically about the latter.

At 600k yrs you have Homo Erectus in Asia, Homo Antecedor (sp?) in Europe, and Homo Ergaster in Africa. Antesdor is thought to have eventually evolved into Neanderthals.

The mtDNA tracing modern humans (H. sapiens) generally comes in around 150k yrs. I've seen dates as far back as 200k, but nothing more than that. The famouse Klases River mouth fossils are thought to be oldest true Homo sapiens found, and they come in at about 120k years old.

Check out Tattersall book, Extinct Humans. It's very good.

Cog
01-26-03, 05:30 PM
Of course melanin is only one aspect of what people call "race", there are a number of others as well. Skeletons are different and general races are easily identified with just a few bones. Nice explination on skin color, but what about the rest of the variation we see? Why are there differences in hair, for example?s this just an evolutionary accident (unlike skin color)?


If it is so easy to get differences in physical features, why not some differences in mental abilities as well? Should we not accept the differences we keep seeing on IQ tests between races and regions?

Balder1
01-26-03, 06:08 PM
The Oriental people don't just have different skin color, they also have different eyes, less facial hair, and shorter heights(on average.) How is that explained? How can natural selection select for shorter heights just from the environment, unless those things come with some other benefit, like higher IQ.

The Vitamin D argument sounds fairly plausible, although I'm still a little skeptical that it could account for all the skin differences. North Americans have almost the same sunlight as Europeans, yet they are very different.

Also, why did these different homo species die out right after after they evolved into a different branch? Seems strange to me that the only homo species is us, and the closest link still alive is the chimpanzee.

Pollux V
01-26-03, 06:14 PM
The minority view, called the Multiregional Hypothesis, states that spaiens evolved all over the world at the same time from earlier forms of Homo. That we've basically been one species for the last ~2M yrs. Homo Erectus in Asia, Home Neanderthalenis in Europe, and Homo Ergastor in Africa all were really the same species that interbred and evolved into us. Check out books by Milford Wolpoff on this theory.

I would strongly disagree here. Has there ever been a case of parallel evolution? If you isolate one group from another, give it a few hundred thousand years and they won't be able to breed anymore, therefore they will be different species. I don't believe that we could have bred with neanderthals or erectii, correct me if I am wrong:cool:


If it is so easy to get differences in physical features, why not some differences in mental abilities as well? Should we not accept the differences we keep seeing on IQ tests between races and regions?

To briefly get political, I can see what you're getting at. I don't think I need a source to say that white kids score better on IQ tests than black kids. Why is this? Because, not to generalize or anything, but the inner city areas, at least in the US, where blacks go to school, are poor and cannot be compared to the suburban schools (like mine) that recieve huge amounts of funding. They don't recieve the same education, so they don't do as well on tests that are meant to measure that education. That's why we have affirmative action: these kids don't get the chance to get a proper education unless they're a step ahead of the rich white assholes that live everwhere else.

Jews do well on these because I've heard that it's in our culture to learn and to be educated. I'm not a practicing jew so I couldn't really tell you any more than that.

But, anyway, in the US, blacks have always been under the other races, because of slavery, because of prejudice. Stop the prejudice, put them on an equal footing, and I have no doubt that the scores will improve and be the same as us white folk:cool:

Yo soy un Homo habilis....:D

Pollux V
01-26-03, 06:15 PM
Also, why did these different homo species die out right after after they evolved into a different branch? Seems strange to me that the only homo species is us, and the closest link still alive is the chimpanzee.

Come on man, we killed them and ate them! Society was only a few thousand years old, whaddya expect?;)

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 06:34 PM
Hair: Just a mutation, odd colors like blonde and the extremely receive red may have been look at as attractive; but hair color change is normally just a neutral mutation.

Eye: Just like hair although brown irises filters out more background-light from reaching the retina then blue irises do. Red irises are the worst.

Height: Control by the amount of food available both genetically and environmentally.

Nose size: Desert people that have to breathe in a lot of sand tend to have bigger noses. The theory is that the bigger nose filters out more sand.

Other differences: I donít think I have seen any studies on things like why Asian have those eyes and so forth.

IQ: Intelligence varies greatly through people of the same race. Even if say Indians (from India) have a tendency to be math geniuses this trend does not represent the whole population. The mental capabilities of a person can not be determined by there race but by individual testing. So there are infect black men that are smarter then most white men. Indians that are bad at math and engineering, Asians that donít know martial arts, Jews that are not evil, ect ect. To see what Iím getting at should I go measure the IQ of a bunch of red necks, take the result and proclaim all whites idiot bigots?

Cog
01-26-03, 06:46 PM
IQ was just an example (one that fires up emotion). IQ looks for a general ability (called the g-factor), that makes one intellegent compared to others. But subtest look at specific things- spacial abilities, various verbal abilities, ect. Is it hard to see that these could differ by race based on natural selection leading to at least some of the differences we see, even if they are trivial?

Cog
01-26-03, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus

IQ: Intelligence varies greatly through people of the same race. Even if say Indians (from India) have a tendency to be math geniuses this trend does not represent the whole population. The mental capabilities of a person can not be determined by there race but by individual testing. So there are infect black men that are smarter then most white men. Indians that are bad at math and engineering, Asians that donít know martial arts, Jews that are not evil, ect ect. To see what Iím getting at should I go measure the IQ of a bunch of red necks, take the result and proclaim all whites idiot bigots? [/B]

There are a number of things wrong with this. First, the "red necks" are a cultural group, not a biological one. The only way this can apply is if you deny the concept of race to begin with. Second, tests are individual, but results are not. The standard of measure is in fact the group as a whole. To claim a group cannot be used in looking at IQ would amount to the denial of IQ, because IQ is only valid if you compare scores to the group. Third, we know that education can alter IQ for any race. I do not suggest anyone deny this, only control for it when scores are measured. Statistics seem to support that some races differ in some respects. The sexes differ too, but only on subtests, not overall (any overall differences have been eliminated on purpose).

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 07:17 PM
Thatís right! Lest say that the group as a whole of all white people are on average 20% smarter then black people, But if you looked at each person individual you would see that there is a lot of smart blacks and a lot of stupid whites. So should we use raw statistics and say well if they are black lets not give them any respect because they are more likely to be stupid or should we jugde people on a more individual level?

Cog
01-26-03, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Thatís right! Lest say that the group as a whole of all white people are on average 20% smarter then black people, But if you looked at each person individual you would see that there is a lot of smart blacks and a lot of stupid whites. So should we use raw statistics and say well if they are black lets not give them any respect because they are more likely to be stupid or should we jugde people on a more individual level?

This is moral reasoning, and as such, you are absolutely right. People should only be judged as individuals and accepted and tolerated for who they are...not what they look like or what culture they grew up in.

However, this is a thread about the science of race, not the moral ideas we should take. Differences cannot be ignored in science, else we are doing a great injustice. There may be a number of important results of knowing differences among groups of people. One fine day, a long time ago, the government decided to contribute all kinds of money to the research of flies. People thought they were insane for giving so much away to fly research. Now that we have finnished the human genome, we know we got our moneys worth. You never know where knowledge can take you. Ignorance on moral grounds is ignorance I cannot accept.

John Mace
01-26-03, 09:53 PM
Pollux:

"I would strongly disagree here. Has there ever been a case of parallel evolution? If you isolate one group from another, give it a few hundred thousand years and they won't be able to breed anymore, therefore they will be different species. I don't believe that we could have bred with neanderthals or erectii, correct me if I am wrong"

Not what I meant to say with regards to the Multiregional Hypothesis. The different groups are NOT seperate species, but one large breeding population. Genes were traded back and forth so that the whole population evolved in concert. Additionally, the Multiregional guys claim that the see indications of modern racial varitions even back as far as 500k yrs. This, by the way, is VERY controversial.

Perrsonally, I stand with the Out of Africa folks and not the Multiregionals.

As for H. sapiens breeding with Neanderthals or Erectus, the jury is still out. The little evidence there is indicates there was no interbreeding, but the sample size is very small. Most anthropolgist are comfortable putting Neanderthals in a seperate species and saying there was little or no interbreeding w/ sapiens.

I don't have data to back this up, but I'd be surprised if sapiens and Neanderthals could not interbreed. Maybe the didn't very often for cultural reasons, but it just doesn't seem that the species were seperated long enough (est at ~600k yrs) to disallow hybridation. Just my opinion, though.

ElectricFetus
01-26-03, 10:09 PM
Iím not say not to study the difference between races Iím say that whatever the results they won't matter because it is the individual that we have to focus on in the end. With modern bio-informatics we will be able to analyze the genome of a individual and tell him/her exact chances for a disease instead of giving them a very rough guess based on there race.

John Mace
01-26-03, 10:23 PM
Fetus:

Good point. Hopefully the more we learn about genetics, the more we'll realize that the differences within a group are larger than the differences between groups.

NenarTronian
01-27-03, 09:52 AM
Good points all around

I'd really like to read something about the biology behind Oriental peoples' eyes and eyelids, etc. I've never asked any of my asian friends, it'd be rude, but can they see just as well as non-orientals, with their eyes being the way they are? If not, would this be considered an evolutionary disadvantage of sorts?

Salud :cool:

John Mace
01-27-03, 11:12 AM
Nenar:

Why do you think so many Asians have to wear glasses?

Sorry, I couldn't resist that little joke-- I'm not serious.

I have read a LOT on human evolution, and can guarantee you that no scientist is even close to understand how subtle traits like the "epicanthic folds" of Asian eyes evolved. The only theory I've seen is that it somehow reduces glare off snow in northern climes. This sounds to me like a REAL stretch.

There is a theory, though, that the closest living model of a group of humans who resemble what humans look like before the racial differentation began are the !Kung San of the Kalahari desert (you know, the guys who have "clicks" in their languange) in Africa. If you've seen pictures of them, they do seem to be an amalgum of all the various races (medium brown skin, high cheek bones, Asian-type eyes). There is even some genetic evidence to suggest that they are the group most closely related to the original humans who left Africa to spread around the world some 50-70ky ago.

It's important to realize, though, that even if this were true it does NOT mean that the !Kang San are somehow "living relics". They have undoubtable undergond physical changes over the thousands of years since H. sapiens migrated out of Africa.

Avatar
01-28-03, 04:07 PM
Pollux: I don't believe that we could have bred with neanderthals or erectii, correct me if I am wrong
ok, I correct
there were found remains of a little girl in France, which had the charecteristics of both: homo sapiens and neanderthal

John Mace
01-28-03, 05:11 PM
I 'm not aware of the France fossil you're talking about. There was a young boy (est 4 yrs old) found in Portugal a few years ago. The anthropologist who excavated it claims it has sapiens features in the skull and Neanderthal liimb proportions. Many other anthropologists dispute his claims-- no clear consensus yet on that one.

Avatar
01-28-03, 06:30 PM
it was on Discovery channel some months ago

wantknoght
02-04-03, 01:03 PM
Dark skin is better in hot climates, and short stature is better in cold climates, because it aids in heat retention, due to reduced surface area.

I don't believe this can explain the emergence of different racial characteristics, solely on the basis of natural selection. However, there is another explanation.

A peacock's feathers actually reduces its survivability, by attracting predators. This is offset enabling the male to advertise his fitness in other respects, which the females find attractive.

In a hot climate, people might recognize the advantages of dark skin, and find it more attractive in a mate. If those with the darkest skin find it easiest to attract a mate, you end up with a dark skinned race.

Further north, lighter skin may have been a sign of wealth, indicating that the person didn't have to work in the sun.

spuriousmonkey
02-05-03, 12:17 AM
actually more recent research indicates that the higher amount of melanin in dark skin serves a more important function than just protecting from the sun. It seems to ward of infections in some manner. In the tropics this seems to be an important quality

Neville
02-12-03, 07:33 AM
To the people who were talking about homo-sapien and Neanderthals skeletons. Is it really possible for them to produce an offspring? This is a monkey and a human ('pre'-human) right?

John Mace
02-12-03, 04:36 PM
Neville:

You lost me. Are you implying that Neanderthals are monkeys?

Maybe spuriousmonkey has the answer...

Avatar
02-12-03, 04:41 PM
neanderthals were no monkeys! :mad:

ElectricFetus
02-12-03, 05:03 PM
My uncle looks just like one! :D

spuriousmonkey
02-13-03, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by John Mace
Neville:

You lost me. Are you implying that Neanderthals are monkeys?

Maybe spuriousmonkey has the answer...

neaderthals were spurious monkeys

Pi.r.Squared
02-14-03, 08:45 AM
Neanderthals were primitive humans neville. Not monkeys but types of humans.

Is that monkeys in a rush spurious monkey?

John Mace
02-14-03, 11:26 AM
Fetus:

re: your uncle

Funny thing about Milford Wallpof, the guy who believes Neanderthals are the ancestors of Modern Europeans. He's kind of a walking defense of his own thesis. The guy looks more like a Neanderthal than almost anyone I've ever seen...

ElectricFetus
02-14-03, 03:22 PM
Maybe thats why he came up with the theory in the first place Hehe :D

spuriousmonkey
02-17-03, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Pi.r.Squared
Neanderthals were primitive humans neville. Not monkeys but types of humans.

Is that monkeys in a rush spurious monkey?

from www.dictionary.com
spu∑ri∑ous P Pronunciation Key (spyr-s)
adj.

1.Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.
2.Of illegitimate birth.
3.Botany. Similar in appearance but unlike in structure or function. Used of plant parts.

pick no.1

so they were not genuine monkeys, but...blabla what has been said above somewhere

Fraggle Rocker
02-17-03, 10:15 PM
It's technically correct to call humans "apes." We are also "primates," the entire order of intelligent, grasping, climbing mammals. But no present or past humans were "monkeys", that is a different branch of the primates. The most obvious difference between apes and monkeys (and all the other primates such as lemurs, for that matter) is that apes are the only ones without tails.

Gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, gibbons, and humans. We are the five species of apes. (OK, some people say that there is more than one species of chimp.)

If anybody doubts our place among the other apes, just watch an Olympic gymnast at work -- and then realize that he or she is doing all that WITHOUT the other species' prehensile feet!

jps
03-10-03, 02:03 AM
Race is a social construction. The describe people as being from a certain race because of their appearance(skin color, hair type, etc.) however biologically there are greater genetic differences between groups of people who look alike than those who don't, but because its not visible we do not categorize them seperately.
To argue that people who look different from each other probalby have other genetic differences makes little sense given this. Why not look at other groups with biological differences, like those susceptible to sickle cell, for differences in IQ from the rest of us?

To anyone still entertaining the ludicrous outdated idea that certain races are innately more intelligent than others I'd reccomend the book
The Mismeasure of Man
by Stephan Jay Gould
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393314251/qid=1047283348/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-4932257-2850366?v=glance&s=books

ElectricFetus
03-10-03, 09:22 AM
AMEN jps!

Neville
03-10-03, 11:20 AM
It's technically correct to call humans "apes." We are also "primates," the entire order of intelligent, grasping, climbing mammals. But no present or past humans were "monkeys", that is a different branch of the primates. The most obvious difference between apes and monkeys (and all the other primates such as lemurs, for that matter) is that apes are the only ones without tails. I find it strange that of all of the branches used to follow evolution from the 'core'/original species humans are the only ones on their branch. All the others have a considerable number of different species: amphibians, tadpoles, fish, lizards etc. (it was on the chart that i was shown anyway and this was pointed out by the lecturer.)

Fraggle Rocker
03-10-03, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Neville
I find it strange that of all of the branches used to follow evolution from the 'core'/original species, humans are the only ones on their branch.Must be an old chart or one drawn up by a special interest group with a point to make. These days humans are where they belong, on the "branch" with the other apes: gorilla, orangutan, gibbon, chimpanzee (maybe more than one species of chimpanzee).
All the others have a considerable number of different species: amphibians, tadpoles, fish, lizards, etc.Hard to picture this chart. Was it designed for youngsters? It plays fast and loose with Linnaean taxonomy. Amphibians and fish are classes within the phylum of vertebrates. Lizards are an order within the class of reptiles within the phylum of vertebrates. Tadpoles are simply the "larval" stage (if I may borrow the word from entomologists, I don't know what herpetologists call them) of frogs, an order within the class of amphibians. No consistency here. It fails to teach anything, at least not anything accurate, and it seems to actually be misleading.
(It was on the chart that I was shown anyway and this was pointed out by the lecturer.)Primates are an order within the class of mammals within the phylum of vertebrates. Modern humans are the only living species (Homo sapiens) within the genus (Homo) of all present and past humans. As far as I can recall, each of the other apes is also a single-species genus. I presume these genera form a family of apes within the class of primates. But vertebrates are famous for having suborders and subclasses and subfamilies so I could be wrong about that last part.

spuriousmonkey
03-11-03, 12:41 AM
yeah ok fraggle...you are right, but neville is in a sense right that the human species is the only humanoid species that is left as you mentioned yourself, although there was a time when there were many.

But in itself it is not uncommon that a lineage is reduced to a single species or a few species. There used to be many horse species and now the count is much less.


these things happen. Some species group radiate, some species group decreases.

John Mace
03-11-03, 11:35 PM
I think we covered this earlier, but:

Go back 50k years ago and you'll find 3 species of Homo: erectus (in southeas asia), neanderthalensis (in Europe) and sapiens (in Africa, Europe, Asia). It's really only in the last 35k years or so that there has been only one hominid species around (discounting the first one, some 6-7M yrs ago).

It's pretty simple to list some mammal Genuses with only one species (or group of sub-species): Manatees, Elephants, Platypus, Giraff, Panda, Hyrax, Gorilla. That was what I could come up with in about 30 sec. There must be many, many more.

spuriousmonkey
03-12-03, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by Fraggle Rocker
Neville is right about that detail, but my concern is that the chart he cited had misled him about the significance of that detail. As you say,Comparing hominids to equines is fair because we're comparing one genus (Equus) with another genus (Homo). Neville's chart compares the GENUS Homo to the CLASS of fish, implying, "Isn't it thought-provoking that there are still tens of thousands (my guess, I'm no ichthyologist) of different species of fish, but only one species of hominids?" The correct answer is, "No it's not, because you're comparing apples to oranges." Or to continue the analogy, "comparing apples to all coniferous trees."

You, on the other hand, point out that there are quite a few other genera that have been reduced to just a few species or even a single species. The proper conclusion, from your data, is that Homo sapiens is not so very remarkable at all, at least by that one measure.

That's why I suggested that the chart Neville recalls must have been trying to "prove" a bogus point by being deliberately misdrawn. Your sound reasoning demolishes it.

yes...i guess i didn't read nevilles post very carefully...

Neville
03-12-03, 04:56 AM
Hard to picture this chart. Was it designed for youngsters? It plays fast and loose with Linnaean taxonomy. Amphibians and fish are classes within the phylum of vertebrates. Lizards are an order within the class of reptiles within the phylum of vertebrates. Tadpoles are simply the "larval" stage (if I may borrow the word from entomologists, I don't know what herpetologists call them) of frogs, an order within the class of amphibians. No consistency here. It fails to teach anything, at least not anything accurate, and it seems to actually be misleading. Alright smarty pants it wasn't meant to be strictly accurate but the point i was making was (i was in a bit of a rush though).


...phylum ... This was the word i was looking for!! :D


Neville is right about that detail, but my concern is that the chart he cited had misled him about the significance of that detail. Nope and this is why i picked up on it, because it was specifically pointed out by the lecturer! Another example of how those 'teaching' us about the world and areas of interest are trying to sway us by presenting what they think, as fact (or at least try to twist the presentation of 'facts' to make them seem more plausible (this annoys me so much!). If people can see holes in their theory (as someone must do who attempts to present something from only a particular angle) then how can they be satisfied themselves?? Aren't these things needed before one can decide how to live? (For further description see the 'social outcast' thread'.)
A diagram was shown for a 'branch' of say reptiles, one for birds etc yet there was also one with just humans on it and this was remarked upon.


...neville is in a sense right that the human species is the only humanoid species that is left as you mentioned yourself, although there was a time when there were many. How do you know?? :bugeye:


Go back 50k years ago and you'll find 3 species of Homo: erectus (in southeas asia), neanderthalensis (in Europe) and sapiens (in Africa, Europe, Asia). It's really only in the last 35k years or so that there has been only one hominid species around (discounting the first one, some 6-7M yrs ago). What about the species' that were not selected by nature?? There would still be evidence of them (it is possible that we havent found them yet but given the different number/varieties of fish etc then why arent there the same number of humanoids? Are you saying that for some reason the genes within the primates are less subject to genetic mutations?? It is these mutations that produce new species'. Random genetic mutations (which the environment (nature) then selects to survive, if it is suitable for survival)

(on a different note would you say that these could be grouped as 3 main 'races' then??)

spuriousmonkey
03-12-03, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by Neville


How do you know?? :bugeye:

fossil record

Neville
03-12-03, 05:10 AM
And the fossil record only shows 3 different species of humanoids? Are you saying that The primates are less likely to experience genetic mutations than other species (all of which do seem to have a greater number of species').

Actually i suppose that if it is truly random then this is the way it would happen: sometimes within some areas there would be no mutations while in other groups (maybe all of them!) there are bursts of mutations.

:mad: :( Argueing with myself. Talking myself down. (I care too much about the truth than finding out that my own beliefs were misguided). One should be grateful for finding out before they die.

spuriousmonkey
03-12-03, 05:11 AM
i think it is actually more than 3 during the time in which many humanoids popped up in africa..but i am not sure how many and where and why and how and etc.

lapisblusky
03-12-03, 08:24 AM
Interesting.... I've always wondered about this subject. Not to take a side-road but I have a question that I've put on a shelf for some time now... in terms of evolutionary changes, what is up with the changes that we see in family lines over the generations? I am into genealogy and I've noticed that there are reoccuring traits that seem to permeate the families that I am studying (which is understandable), but what I can't figure out are the individuals who pop up at random that have traits that are similar that skip generations and don't seem to affect the majority of the family. For instance, one man in a family is unusually tall in comparison to the rest of the family, has large features and hands but his children don't, they look like the rest of the family. then several generations later, another individual shows up with the same traits, but doesn't pass them on to his children. Why do the traits of the individual who is different than the rest of the family not show up in his children & grandchildren? You would think that as the generations went on, .some of his traits would become apparent in his line.

spuriousmonkey
03-12-03, 09:01 AM
it could be a recessive allele...in that case you need 2 copies of it before the phenotype appears.

John Mace
03-13-03, 12:27 AM
Neville:

I think someone already addessed this, but you cannot compare "fish" to "humans". "Fish" is a much broader category (or order) and is comparable to "mammals". There are thousands of mammal species.

Scienties don't agree on how many hominid species there were, but any given time there may have been as many as 6 or 7. If you're really interested, check out the book "Extict Humans" by Ian Tattersal.

spuriousmonkey
03-13-03, 02:28 AM
wasn't it so that among vertebrates the 'group' of fish have the most species by far??? something like 20.000 or more???

i'm not sure anymore...it has been so long since i read about it.

edit:

http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/species/

"This is a preliminary version of a database containing about 53,500 described species and subspecies of fishes. Approximately 4000 of the names included are not available for use because of technical reasons. About 25,000 species are valid ones, and about 25,000 are synonyms. About 200-300 new species are still being described each year."

3finger
03-14-03, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Thatís right! Lest say that the group as a whole of all white people are on average 20% smarter then black people, But if you looked at each person individual you would see that there is a lot of smart blacks and a lot of stupid whites. So should we use raw statistics and say well if they are black lets not give them any respect because they are more likely to be stupid or should we jugde people on a more individual level?

This line of question/answer is getting polluted with political correctness. Above we all agreed (well stated fetus) on scientific basis for evelutionary differences in the races. And we agreed that environment is the likely cause for much of it. Environment in this scenerio would include DIET and CULTURE as determaining forces if you go back in history to the point of this races isolation from the others, thus termed parallel evelution above.

It is sad that we allow political correctness to cloud the obvious fact that intelligence could very well have been one of the benefits of shortcomings of a races evelution due to the dietetic intake, priorities of the culture, and customs of family within the culture. This may be less prominent today, as I can walk to the corner and eat a chinese food diet. But it is safe to say the BODY (WHICH INCLUDES THE BRAIN) could be affected in its development and efficiency by 2000 years of a heavy fish diet.

I believe it to be more than likely (obvious) that different races came into the modern age (point at which all races are now mixed thouroughly) with differences in intelligence based on differences in the development of the brain. I believe them to be slight, but obviously must exist to some degree.

I do not contend that I can walk down the street, and grab a few asians, and a few blacks, and find this difference. But I do contend that one could visit an area of asia that is populated with families that havnt worked much with outside cultures or traveled, and do the same in Congo......and find definate differences in brain development. SLIGHT mind you, but definate.

I put this point forward, I believe they are so slight, because of the short perioid of time (in evelutionary unit) before the cultures began to intermix, and freely interect with each others environments and cultures. Had all the dominant cultures on the planet today decided to stay put, and isolate themselves for the next 100 million years.....is it not safe to say one culture would arrise more intelligent???

If this is as obviously a yes as it seems to me, then keep in mind this is an extrapolation, and the same thing would have occurred over the shorter period of isolation that all these cultures were geographically subjected too,....on a much less noticable scale.

IN short...dont let politcal correctness stunt your analytical thought. As it is often the creation of those at the disadvantage in the first place, and you may be getting your idea from a less intelligent source than yourself.

PS - fetus...great answers on physical differences above.

3finger - HS dropout - caucasian - 142 IQ - inner city upbringing - go figure

weebee
04-19-03, 11:17 AM
A couple of questions related to the following;

ĎBut I do contend that one could visit an area of Asia that is populated with families that havnt worked much with outside cultures or traveled, and do the same in Congo......and find definate differences in brain development.í

In fact the study by Price-Williams in 1961 compared Swiss children with the Tiv people in Nigeria and showed that using the the piaget-type tasks the intelligence scores were similar.

But the problems I have are two fold. 1) which difference is better, i.e. more intelligent, does this not depend on your own cultural stand point, since intelligence is defined in terms of our culture. 2) these individuals will have had different womb environments, diets, educations ect, which do not allow the differences in brain to be reduced to genetics.

I have yet to read of a study which after careful scrutiny of its methods and sampling supports a difference in race and sex IQ, or one which supports a difference in brain size.

By passing the problem of what IQ and race is, as far as I can see intelligence would be a natural selection force for all Ďracesí.

celtic origin
07-17-04, 07:15 PM
If there is no difference in race why is it that people of african descent are known to have an extra bone in there foot and why people of asian descent have a difference in their eyes compared to other people groups and also for my last point i believe we are all descendents from the same group as a entire race but unsure how these differences occured could anybody help me understand the human chain of change. :)

Oxygen
07-17-04, 09:54 PM
(You just know somebody's gonna say it, so it might as well be me...)
celtic origin - I think its because certain people learned how to break up a paragraph and avoid run-on sentences.

celtic origin
07-19-04, 04:58 PM
Another question id like to make is, is it true when we die that we lose 21 grams instantly, some people say it is your soul leaving your body but I do not
believe in any sort of heaven and hell so am unsure where the soul would be
going, also does anybody know what times these kind of stories came about.
I believe if we lose 21 grams instantly it must have something to do with the intestines shrinking can anybody try back up my claim or give me your points
on this accusation . :confused:

ElectricFetus
07-19-04, 05:23 PM
is it true when we die that we lose 21 grams instantly
No that just BS
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1105956.htm

spidergoat
07-19-04, 05:52 PM
Isn't it possible that traits aquired in one's lifetime are transferred to the DNA, to be passed on to later generations?

ElectricFetus
07-19-04, 05:58 PM
Nope that not possible either.

Facial
07-19-04, 09:12 PM
I think we have races because of something I learned in bio called genetic drift. When the first humans re-emerged from Africa they must've split up into pretty small nomadic groups from tribal conflicts or whatever. In small groups, genetic variations happen to drift more and more. So the same species, humans, must have come out of Africa and once they splitted into different groups, they start to drift apart genetically. This is probably how races developed. Before the races could become their own species, however, our intellectual and technological development on globalization grew too fast. Today, the genetic drift has pretty much stopped due to large populations in most races. You can see how modern-day humans have different genetic adaptations, especially in Africa. Africans have more resistance to solar radiation and have heterozygote superiority to sickle-cell anemia. Also, the faces of Native Americans almost became indistinguishable with that of the Asians, indicating that a small group (maybe hundreds or several thousands) migrated across the Bering Strait 12,000 years ago, but still you can see the similarity.

Oxygen
07-20-04, 08:38 PM
Even among the white races there are distinct variations. That's why I get a kick out of forms that ask for race and list "White", "African American" and "Native American" as catch-all categories, ignoring the diversity within the groups. I usually check "Other" and put down "Gaelic-Germanic-North African-Anasazi". THAT oughta screw up their database! I wonder how many scholarships I qualify for?

(My husband is a classic Heinz 57, although his facial features are distinctly Russian.)

Facial
07-21-04, 02:13 AM
Very true, oxygen. You qualify for many :D

Tracker00
07-21-04, 11:38 AM
race is just a social construct. so people we an extra bone in their foot and people without the bone belong to different races. maybe tall people are one race and short people are another.


If there is no difference in race why is it that people of african descent are known to have an extra bone in there foot and why people of asian descent have a difference in their eyes compared to other people groups and also for my last point i believe we are all descendents from the same group as a entire race but unsure how these differences occured could anybody help me understand the human chain of change. :)

river-wind
07-21-04, 03:15 PM
"Why do you think so many Asians have to wear glasses?"
the WHO just finished up a study on this and determined that the higher rates of near-sightedness had mostly to due with life-style. As western society shift more and more to spending time inside, focusing on close-up objects (esp during childhood), we will see an increase in near sightedness here as well.

And Spurious, there is some study into the passage of certain learned-traits in a lamarkian-like way. Given that it looks more and more that the structure and pathways of the protiens already present in the mother's gametes may have an effect on the accuracy of DNA reproduction, the life of the mother will have a very minor effect on the child's basic genetic code. over thousands of generations, given similar environmental pressures, you might see the externalization of that subtle effect.

Lastly, to the person who said that two populations, separated for a long time would become two species: you are close. Not quite right though. Two populations, unable to cross-breed, have a *chance* to become different species, if there is environmental pressure to drive evolution in two different directions. If you have two populations, place them in two seperate but completely identical environments, there would only be random chance driving the divergence of the populations. Much more than a couple hundred, or even a couple thousand years would most likely be needed to end up with two different species in such a situation. (note: there is a small semantic caviot that any time two populations are seperated, they are considered different species, because they wouldn't encounter eachother naturally anymore; but that's just semantics.)
The classic example of the Galapagos finches specifically depended on the different food sources on each of the different islands.

river-wind
07-21-04, 03:21 PM
I think we have races because of something I learned in bio called genetic drift.
Genetic drift could account for a certain amount of the differences between groups, but genetic drift specifically only deals with the frequency of traits within a populations.
If you have a group with 50% x and 50% y, then wait a few years, and find 25% x and 75% y; that is genetic drift.
If, however, you have a group that is 50% x and 50% y, then test again year later and find 25% x 25% y, and 50% q, that is evolution.
I would simalarly put a group originally at 50% x, 49% y and 1% q, later found to be 50%x and 50% q in the classification of evolution. Even though no new genetic types were introduced during the testing time frame, the population's genetic pool have been altered; not just shifted within the original choises - genetic option y is gone in this case.

FWIK, the different human "races" actually do have occurances of differing genetic pools to choose from, suggesting evolution, and not just drift.

paulsamuel
07-21-04, 04:49 PM
Lastly, to the person who said that two populations, separated for a long time would become two species: you are close.

They are right. Given time and genetic drift, speciation will occur.


Two populations, unable to cross-breed, have a *chance* to become different species if there is environmental pressure to drive evolution in two different directions.
that chance is 100%, with drift alone, given enough time: no need for selection.


Genetic drift could account for a certain amount of the differences between groups, but genetic drift specifically only deals with the frequency of traits within a populations.
If you have a group with 50% x and 50% y, then wait a few years, and find 25% x and 75% y; that is genetic drift.
It could also be selection.

If, however, you have a group that is 50% x and 50% y, then test again year later and find 25% x 25% y, and 50% q, that is evolution.
Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time (usually measured in generations). Both of the gene frequency scenarios that you presented are examples of evolution. I.e., genetic drift is evolution.


FWIK, the different human "races" actually do have occurances of differing genetic pools to choose from, suggesting evolution, and not just drift.
As Tracker said, human races are social and cultural constructs, not biological taxa.

river-wind
07-22-04, 09:31 AM
They are right. Given time and genetic drift, speciation will occur.



that chance is 100%, with drift alone, given enough time: no need for selection.

why is that? The more time, the better the chances, but I don't see a 100% chance there. With no environmental pressure, or more accuratly, no difference in environmental pressures, then only the randomness of mutation and meiosis will determine genetic change over generations. There is always a chance that this will not lead to new species.



It could also be selection.

It is my understanding that selection will lead fist to genetic drift within a population, then to evolution of that population; I don't see selection as mutually exclusive of drift. Selection is a force which effects Drift and Evolution.


Evolution is the change in gene frequency over time (usually measured in generations). Both of the gene frequency scenarios that you presented are examples of evolution. I.e., genetic drift is evolution.

ok, I see the logic in that definition. I have largely been taught that genetic drift is something sort of apart from evolution, but I guess you are right.



As Tracker said, human races are social and cultural constructs, not biological taxa.
But there is certainly phenotypical difference between people whose ancestors came from different areas of the world. While genetic variation may be greater within a given population (between individuals within a single 'race') than between 'races', the chances of active combinational gene sets (ie, the chance of a phenotypical item occuring in an individual) is greater within those races.
I have two caucasean parents. We have Native American blood down the line, but 90% of my ancestry is European. While the diversity between me and a random guy from France may be statistically more (based on total gene difference %) than between me and a guy from SE Asia, phenotypically (and therefore genomically in terms of active gene sets, not just individual genes), the guy from france and I are more alike.
If genes determine if I am red-haired or brown haired/light skinned or dark skinned, then genes certainly play a role in 'races'. the lines drawn between this race and that race are certain culturally defined; there is no genetic arbitration between one race and another. However, you do not find dark-skinned children born to purely northern european families.

Would you suggest that different breeds of domestic animals within the same species are simply social constructs? If so, then the entire idea of species could be considered a social construct as well; much of the time there is no hard genetic line between species A and species B, at least by the current definition of species.
Any sort of classification system will be based on social construct; however, that doesn't preclude that there may be reasoning behind it.

paulsamuel
07-22-04, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by paulsamuel
"Given time and genetic drift, speciation will occur...that chance is 100%, with drift alone, given enough time: no need for selection."

why is that?
because the force that keeps a species cohesive is interbreeding, prevent interbreeding and differences will build up steadily until the inevitable reproductive barriers appear. They could be chromosomal, or behavioral. They could be based on cell receptor sites (i.e. those responsible for sperm recognition by egg) or merely mechanical (e.g. chirality in snails or the fitting of pedipalp into seminal vescicle). Drift alone leads to speciation.


It is my understanding that selection will lead fist to genetic drift within a population, then to evolution of that population; I don't see selection as mutually exclusive of drift. Selection is a force which effects Drift and Evolution.
genetic drift is the random differentiation of the genomes of two non-interbreeding populations. selection is, by definition, directional, and therefore, non-random. The 2 are mutually exclusive, but generally act together.


But there is certainly phenotypical difference between people whose ancestors came from different areas of the world. While genetic variation may be greater within a given population (between individuals within a single 'race') than between 'races', the chances of active combinational gene sets (ie, the chance of a phenotypical item occuring in an individual) is greater within those races.
race is a biological term.

it was used by natural theologians in the 19th century to explain species variation. God was supposed to have created and placed each species on earth, but it was obvious that phenotypic variation within a species occured in local geographic forms. instead of advocating that God created these variations (which would lead down the slippery slope to advocating that, because each individual of all species is slightly different from one another, God created each individual of every species that ever lived on the face of the earth), it was concluded that these variants occured naturally due to local climatic differences, and these were termed 'races.'

It is an antiquated term rarely used today and is mostly replaced by the term 'subspecies' or 'sub-species.' The only known sub-species of humans is Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, c.f. H.s.sapiens).

Although no one denies that there is phenotypic variation in humans, and to some extent this variation is geographic, the time of isolation was not enough to differentiate the populations into sub-species.

Phylogenetic studies have shown this to be the case in humans.

For example, if you made a family tree of humans, from the beginning of the species to the modern day, you can determine the familial relationships of each human alive today. If you try to map racial characteristics on this family tree (i.e. skin color, hair color, eye shape, etc.), you would have to break the family links to keep the racial characters cohesive. That is, the racial characters don't fall out along family lines, that is they don't fall out along relatedness, that is they don't fall out along genetic similarities.


Would you suggest that different breeds of domestic animals within the same species are simply social constructs? yes i would, if they present the same problems as related for humans. i don't know enough about the phylogeny of domesticated animals to know if they fall out along familial lines or not.


Any sort of classification system will be based on social construct; however, that doesn't preclude that there may be reasoning behind it.yes, i would not argue with that. what i'm saying is that it's not biological, it's not scientific; it's arbitrary constructed along social and cultural guidelines.

Preacher_X
07-22-04, 04:37 PM
i heard in a documentary that it takes 20,000 years for a race to go from black to white and vise versa

celtic origin
07-22-04, 05:36 PM
No that just BS
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1105956.htm
why do you say that is there any scientific evidence to prove your theory its bs

ElectricFetus
07-22-04, 05:40 PM
ya the lack of statically relevant data showing its true.

celtic origin
07-22-04, 05:40 PM
No that just BS
http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1105956.htm
why do you say that is there any scientific evidence to prove your theory its bs and i don't mean to be a sadist by saying this i just wanted to ask you because you seem to know quite a lot

Facial
07-25-04, 10:27 PM
I would like to emphasize the population sizes of the ancient nomad groups being small ; that is when genes start to get probabilistic and not empirical.

bradguth
07-31-04, 12:32 PM
Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, especially as far as the skin pigment is concerned. Does black skin really help well enough for the black people to generally evolve it based on natural selection?
As in the people with darker skin generally survived and reproduced more while lighter skin people gradually. One fluke person has a bit blacker skin than the rest, and as a result he survives way better?:bugeye:

This seems to suggest to me that our evolution is not only affected by natural selection, but also by the environment. Somehow the DNA for pigment makes the skin blacker and blacker because of the amount of sun its getting. I haven't heard of any of this, so I'm curious about how it happened.

While we're on this subject, how long do homo sapiens as we know them date back to?

How about instead of the pure happenstance of random panspermia, and of the hundreds of uninterrupted millions if not billions of years worth of continuing happenstance evolution transpiring, we take an honest look-see at the possibilities of terraforming.

It is quite clear that our solar system has in the past, and will again in the future cruise sufficiently close to the Sirius star system, perhaps as close as 0.01 light year. In which case all of hell is going to bust lose from the matrix of opposing Kuiper flak, although allowing the capability of others, a whole lot smarter than all of humanity, as to pay us another visit.

BTW; I'll be glad to offer scientific backing as for supporting this conjecture.

Of course, if you'd be insisting that your Earth is flat, and thereby we are the absolute sole center of this universe, then God help us because, right about now humanity is running itself seriously amuck, and our messily flat-world isn't going to keep ticking if this godforsaken trend continues.

Keeping in mind, as unlike a good number of seemingly "all knowing" folks having their free run of this forum, I'm certainly not the one that's excluding upon the possibilities of evolution, of the environment influencing upon whatever, nor even that of creation. I'm just proposing that we are NOT the center of this universe.

Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

eburacum45
07-31-04, 07:29 PM
There is only a miniscule chance that Sirius has ever come close to the Solar system; I am not discounting it, just pointing out that the relative motions of stars in a galaxy are largely chaotic because of the difficulties in calculating gravity in a many body problem.
So there is no more reason to say that Sirius has come close to our solar system than any other star.

And it would be impossible; literally impossible; to prove that Sirius (as opposed to any other star) has ever been that close.

However; an interesting idea...

bradguth
07-31-04, 08:48 PM
Is perchance you're real name Mr. Negative?

Do you still belong to the "Flat Earth Society"?

Sorry about that but, I do believe you're dead wrong, as you're discounting a great many folks that seem to know at least a thousand fold more than you or myself.

"And it would be impossible; literally impossible; to prove that Sirius (as opposed to any other star) has ever been that close."

Lets just say (speculate if you'd care), that I, or rather diatoms, can prove that none other than Sirius has been as close, enough to have influenced our global environment, and that's upon more than one occasion.

James R
07-31-04, 09:27 PM
It is quite clear that our solar system has in the past, and will again in the future cruise sufficiently close to the Sirius star system, perhaps as close as 0.01 light year. In which case all of hell is going to bust lose from the matrix of opposing Kuiper flak, although allowing the capability of others, a whole lot smarter than all of humanity, as to pay us another visit.

BTW; I'll be glad to offer scientific backing as for supporting this conjecture.

Ok then. Show me the money!

WildBlueYonder
08-01-04, 06:04 PM
Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, especially as far as the skin pigment is concerned.
There is only one human race; Homo sapiens sapiens. Read "The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey" by Spencer Wells

from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/069111532X/104-5192197-0826346?v=glance
Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
Spencer Wells traces human evolution back to our very first ancestor in The Journey of Man. Along the way, he sums up the explosive effect of new techniques in genetics on the field of evolutionary biology and all available evidence from the fossil record. Wells's seemingly sexist title is purposeful: he argues that the Y chromosome gives us a unique opportunity to follow our migratory heritage back to a sort of Adam, just as earlier work in mitochondrial DNA allowed the identification of Eve, mother of all Homo sapiens. While his descriptions of the advances made by such luminary scientists as Richard Lewontin and Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza can be dry, Wells comes through with sparkling metaphors when it counts, as when he compares genetic drift to a bouillabaisse recipe handed down through a village's generations. Though finding our primal male is an exciting prospect, the real revolution Wells describes is racial. Or rather, nonracial, as he reiterates the scientific truth that our notions of what makes us different from each other are purely cultural, not based in biology. The case for an "out of Africa" scenario of human migration is solid in this book, though Wells makes it clear when he is hypothesizing anything controversial. Readers interested in a fairly technical, but not overwhelming, summary of the remarkable conclusions of 21st-century human evolutionary biology will find The Journey of Man a perfect primer. --Therese Littleton


or check these:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans

Facial
08-02-04, 12:56 AM
There's only one race of domesticated dog: Canis familiaris.

bradguth
08-02-04, 07:38 AM
Ok then. Show me the money!

Lets just say (speculate if you'd care), that I, or rather diatoms, can prove that none other than Sirius has been as close (possibly within 0.01 light year), enough to have influenced our global environment, and that's upon more than one occasion.

This following link offers insight into what a few other individuals might have to offer, that which refines the notion that all is not so "impossible" as you put it. Take notice of the close by stars, one of which is surely Sirius, that cycle many times faster than of the Milky Way undulating cycle of 225 million years. Of course, that may be because the likes of Sirius, our solar system and of a few other stars are not actually part of the Milky Way galaxy, but of somewhat passing through.

http://www.edpsciences.org/papers/aa/abs/press-releases/PR20030959/PR20030959.html
"The last orbit of the observed stars in their motion around the Galactic Centre (GC). Each orbit takes about 225 million years. The movie shows that the stars have travelled extensively in the disk of the Milky Way before converging into the small volume where we observe them today. The Sun is marked by a blue dot; its orbit by the white curve."

I have my poorly constructed papers that'll need some updated corrections, such as fully accredited feedback from yourself, which should offer a not so brief notion as to why I'm thinking so far outside the mainstream box: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-sirius-diatoms.htm

Other ongoing arguments, on a fairly wide range of topics, are summarized in the following UPDATE index, although it's sharing a bit further outside the box than most individuals would care to venture.
Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm

eburacum45
08-02-04, 07:00 PM
That image of the rotation of the galaxy with projections of the historical locations of stars is an interesting link, thank you, Bradguth.

It does not prove that Sirius has ever come close to the Sun, although , As I said before, it does not rule out the possibility; in fact if you look at the projection for the date 150 million years b.p. many of the stars now in our local volume seem to temporarily converge on our then current location.

But the effects of the mutual gravities of all those stars would have been chaotic and makes the exact location of the Sun, and its relation to Sirius, impossible to predict accurately, even with a computer the size of the Galaxy.

I'll give you a little information about the real motion of Sirius, if you like; Sirius is an outlying member of a loose association of stars, a former cluster known as Collinder 285; the main stars of this cluster are about eighty light years away, and are visible as the middle stars of the Big Dipper.
For this reason the whole group is known as the Ursa Major co-moving group or the Sirius stream; Sirius, and all the stars in this group, are about 400 million years old, and have been round the Galaxy more or less together twice, slowly spreading apart (once they were a tight, young cluster like the Pleiades).

The Sun is not a part of this co-moving group, and so has no association with the movement of Sirius or Collinder 285;
the proper motion of the Sun is toward Vega, while that of Sirius is currently toward Sagittarius.

WildBlueYonder
08-03-04, 08:16 PM
If there is no difference in race why is it that people of african descent are known to have an extra bone in there foot and why people of asian descent have a difference in their eyes compared to other people groups and also for my last point i believe we are all descendents from the same group as a entire race but unsure how these differences occured could anybody help me understand the human chain of change.
could you expound on the extra bone? like citations, URL's or links please?, I've heard of an extra leg muscle, etc.

but we'zall one big happy African race, just a bunch of mutations that may or may not lead to speciation , :D

as for the drift; most of it is called "founder's effect", the rest is mutations & adaptations, read more; Spencer Wells is a start, E.O. Wilson, etc...

WildBlueYonder
08-03-04, 08:20 PM
It is quite clear that our solar system has in the past, and will again in the future cruise sufficiently close to the Sirius star system, perhaps as close as 0.01 light year. In which case all of hell is going to bust lose from the matrix of opposing Kuiper flak, although allowing the capability of others, a whole lot smarter than all of humanity, as to pay us another visit.

ah, are you sure these ideas fit into this thread & not someother one? maybe paranormal? or sci-fi?

WildBlueYonder
08-03-04, 08:24 PM
There's only one race of domesticated dog: Canis familiaris.
yes, and what a varied, wonderful, odd, range of diffs it has, no?

technically, we're 'domesticated man', unless you're single, then you're feral, WILDman :D

Fraggle Rocker
08-03-04, 09:32 PM
If there is no difference in race why is it that... people of Asian descent have a difference in their eyes compared to other people groups?It's not that simple. Having lived most of my life in the Western U.S., I'm keenly aware of the fact that the Native Americans (the politically correct term) or the Indians (as they tell me they would rather be called because I'm a Native American for having been born in Chicago) don't have that epicanthic fold that we refer to as "slanted eyes."

Since the Na-Dene ethnic group that basically populated the U.S. and Canada west of the Rockies in pre-Columbian days migrated from Asia in about 4,000 BC, that physical trait is quite a recent mutation in the gene pool that stayed in Asia. And we know that the people in Asia were the ones that changed, because the Athabascans, who populated all the rest of the Americas except the Arctic regions, arrived here at least 14,000 years ago and they don't have the eyefold either.

So that "difference in eyes" is not something that distinguishes the so-called Mongoloid race from the so-called Caucasians. It only distinguishes the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc., from their cousins, the Aztecs, Incas, Cherokees, etc.

Alsophia Theophilos
08-18-04, 07:56 PM
The outer physical form is greatly influenced by the endocrine system which is focussed and charged by consciousness itself. Ever wonder how Americans changed in only a couple hundred years from little short guys (try walking through the door of an american house built in the late 1600's) into the large six foot creatures we are today? The way we thought about ourselves had a lot to do with it. The mind charged the endocrine system, and the body followed orders. I think there is an underlying principle there that is the key to all evolution as we know it. Problem we have with understanding this model is that we haven't really much of a clue as to what the mind/consciousness/awareness thing really is. Perhaps when we left Platonic philosophy for Aristotelean we made a wrong turn. Keep hammering at it with your logic, though.

spuriousmonkey
08-19-04, 06:07 AM
Improvement in diet, hygiene, and health care.

thefountainhed
08-19-04, 04:40 PM
I have read a LOT on human evolution, and can guarantee you that no scientist is even close to understand how subtle traits like the "epicanthic folds" of Asian eyes evolved. The only theory I've seen is that it somehow reduces glare off snow in northern climes. This sounds to me like a REAL stretch.
How about as a trait that developed due selection of mates?

What I would really like to see is an IQ test that does not rely on the American population of 'Blacks', as the representation of a so called black race. Does the 10% rule still hold nowadays?

Dr Lou Natic
08-19-04, 08:39 PM
I have read a LOT on human evolution, and can guarantee you that no scientist is even close to understand how subtle traits like the "epicanthic folds" of Asian eyes evolved. The only theory I've seen is that it somehow reduces glare off snow in northern climes. This sounds to me like a REAL stretch.
Hahahaha
Whats so mysterious about that? Geeze, you don't seem to be bothered by the evolution of octapai or birds, but man, those eyes being slightly differently shaped to other races, how could that possibly come about by natural means?

Fraggle Rocker
08-19-04, 10:45 PM
The outer physical form is greatly influenced by the endocrine system which is focussed and charged by consciousness itself. Ever wonder how Americans changed in only a couple hundred years from little short guys (try walking through the door of an american house built in the late 1600's) into the large six foot creatures we are today? The way we thought about ourselves had a lot to do with it. The mind charged the endocrine system, and the body followed orders. I think there is an underlying principle there that is the key to all evolution as we know it. Problem we have with understanding this model is that we haven't really much of a clue as to what the mind/consciousness/awareness thing really is. Perhaps when we left Platonic philosophy for Aristotelean we made a wrong turn. Keep hammering at it with your logic, though.Uh.... Interesting hypothesis. But the conventional answer to that question does just as good a job and requires a lot less immersion in woo-woo.

It was just about that time that we began taking advantage of the unbelievably low population density of a continent that hadn't yet had its resources strained by a post-Neolilthic society. Naturally we wasted little time doing exactly that, and started by using the land to provide a higher-protein diet. By the early 18th century we had imported enough breeding stock to quickly build the herds of good sturdy cattle and sheep that the incredibly rich soil would feed. Pork, chicken, and the delicious native turkey -- as well as the endless bounty of game animals -- also added protein to our diet in quantities that the inhabitants of Europe hadn't seen since the original discovery of agriculture and animal husbandry at the cusp that marked the transition from the Stone Age to civilization.

High-protein diets make almost any species of carnivore or omnivore larger in very short order. Look at what American dog breeders have done to Irish wolfhounds and St. Bernards in just a few decades by overfeeding the puppies on high-protein feed! Those dogs have become so large that their skeletons are overloaded and they tend to die sad, decrepit, and very early deaths.

Look at our immigrant communities for an example closer to your point. People come over here from nations where the food supply is more modest in protein content and the average height for an adult man is well below six feet (183cm), in some cases five and a half feet (168cm). Within just two generations of eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, ham and cheese sandwiches for lunch, meat loaf, pizza, and fried chicken for dinner, and Big Macs between meals whenever the adults aren't looking, their grandchildren are reaching six feet two inches (188cm).

Alsophia Theophilos
08-20-04, 07:31 AM
I understand that there is a healthy fear of too much woo woo. It can be damaging to a good academic career. But please explain this to me: why would feeding a short 5 footer an overdose of big macs generate offspring of six footers. It seems to me it would only create a bunch of overweight shorties. You cannot show in anyway how a diet influences genetics. At least not that I have heard of. It's just a safer way to explain it all. The academic world is a slippery trail, and one step in woowoo poopoo can create a fall, and that's when the wolves appear. I understand. I think there is some validity to my idea, but it is in an area of study that is difficult to "quantify".
Thanks for your kind reply. At least you took the time to read it and thought about it enough to reject it.

spuriousmonkey
08-20-04, 07:49 AM
Because the extra proteins influence the growth rate.

Alsophia Theophilos
08-20-04, 11:09 AM
Eat as many bananas as you want, but please explain to me how that effects the genes. Or are all you guys saying that as soon as the diet is diminished, we will revert to short five footers. I'd say at that time we'd have a lot of skinny six footers. You're completely missing the point.
I have to leave Peru today, but I'll be checking back in in a few days.
Chau - and keep the old brain cells smoking.

Fraggle Rocker
08-20-04, 06:19 PM
You cannot show in anyway how a diet influences genetics.It doesn't. Genetics isn't the only thing that affects size. During infancy, ingesting a high quantity of protein -- and to a significant extent even ingesting a high quantity of calories -- increases the growth rate. Just as illness can decrease it.

Larger yearlings have larger stomachs and larger intestines and larger livers and more miles of blood vessels. They can metabolize more food than their smaller siblings or cousins from the same gene pool. So they often grow up to be proportionately larger.

Larger females tend to have larger fetuses for similar reasons. More nutrients in the blood supply, more room in the uterus. We deal with that all the time in dog breeding.

Of course genetics has a great effect on size, but in cases where genetic differences can be conclusively be ruled out (e.g., a bloodline of dogs that's been rigorously managed for twenty generations, only forty years), the differences can be easily correlated with nutrition (e.g. the advent of these horribly over-rich puppy chows).

The reason Issei Japanese-American immigrants who stood five foot-five had Nisei children who stood five foot-eight, Sansei grandchildren who reached five foot-eleven, and Yossei great-grandchildren who are six foot-two, is that they got more calories and more protein in their diets when they were babies than their ancestors did in the old country. The Japanese who stayed home are slowly growing taller for the same reason.

It's as simple as that.

And for the record I don't categorically dismiss the two-way interaction between the brain and the endocrine system. If hormones can make us feel different, then feelings caused by outside stimuli can certainly feed back into our glands and cause them to secrete different quantities of hormones, as in the most obvious case of a shot of adrenaline at the sight of an angry elephant.

But this has been going on forever. There's no reason to suspect that the feedback from our brains into our endocrine system has undergone a qualitative change in the last couple of centuries.

What has undergone a qualitative change is our nutrition. I've been to the hall in the Smithsonian that carefully tracks the average height of Homo sapiens in different eras. It seems that every time life gets easier because of peace, civilization, or mild climate, resulting in more and better food for everybody's babies, we get about two inches taller.

Repo Man
08-20-04, 07:08 PM
As the others have pointed out, the height of an individual is a classic example of how our outcome is a combination of environment and heridity.

An individuals genetic makeup will determine the maximum possible height they could achieve. Environment takes over from there.

Any ichthyologist can show you examples of the same principle applying to fish. You can have fish from the same batch of eggs, raise them to adulthood in different environments, and have radically different adults. An example would be freshwater Angelfish (Pterophyllum Scalare). Raise half of a brood in a 10 gallon tank with little food, and the other half in a 50 gallon tank with unlimited food. The resulting adults will be very different in size. Putting the small ones in the large tank with adequate food won't make any difference after a certain point. The opportunity has been lost.

The early European colonists in this country had very poor nutrition on average, and were constantly plagued by infectious diseases. It is no surprise at all that present day Americans are much larger on average.

WildBlueYonder
08-22-04, 12:37 AM
But please explain this to me: why would feeding a short 5 footer an overdose of big macs generate offspring of six footers. It seems to me it would only create a bunch of overweight shorties. You cannot show in anyway how a diet influences genetics.
it makes him a better eater, his kids are the ones that get the better diet, bigger bodies. If you need proof, get your browser to look up changes in average height, per population group. As an example, in my Mexican family, males are usually around 5' 6" in Mexico, but 5' 8" here in the US (in one generation) & getting bigger. Chinese, Japanese here have the same story, why? richer diet; more meat & potatoes (also known as; Big Macs & fries). The gene for taller must be already there, just needs the 'on' button

Fraggle Rocker
08-22-04, 05:00 PM
There's only one race of domesticated dog: Canis familiaris.I missed this one when you originally posted it. The use of the term "race" with animals other than people is a bit imprecise. In many languages, people use the word for "race" to mean what we mean by "breed." They say "a pure-race Siamese cat" instead of "pure-bred."

As for dogs, this issue has already been seen through to completion on an earlier thread of its own and the URLs to the scientific papers are posted there. DNA analysis has proven that wolves and dogs are a single species. Wolves are merely the oldest "breed" of dog. That said, there are about four subspecies of wolves, populations that have been separated for so long that they have clear genetic identifiers. One of those subspecies is the domestic dog, which is now classified as Canis lupus familiaris.

Dogs did not self-domesticate (we didn't do it, they volunteered) spontaneously all over the world. Turns out it happened in one place, in what is now China, and people took their dogs with them as they migrated or traded them to other tribes. All domestic dogs are descended from the same wolf pack in China, and the wolves in that region still have the same genetic markers.

Since dogs and humans didn't create the Earth's first voluntary multi-species community until about 10,000BCE, it means that the first wave of human migration from Asia to North America ca. 13,000BCE (some anthropologists say much earlier) didn't have any dogs. Poor people! They had to wait for the second wave, almost ten thousand years later. Even though that second wave didn't penetrate further south than the Rio Grande or further east than the Rockies, by the time the Europeans arrived about 5,500 years after that, dogs were well ensconced throughout the whole hemisphere. Dogs must have been quite popular as trade goods.

btw, the only serious physiological differences between dogs and the other wolves correlate with their externally directed evolution from hunters to scavengers. They don't have the sharp teeth about halfway back that wolves use to efficiently slice fresh meat, making it difficult for a dog to "wolf" down his kill before the hyenas and vultures arrive. And they have a measurably smaller brain, which can be supported by a lower-protein diet.

Athelwulf
08-22-04, 05:40 PM
To the people who were talking about homo-sapien and Neanderthals skeletons. Is it really possible for them to produce an offspring? This is a monkey and a human ('pre'-human) right?

I think they can.

Modern human beings are Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals were Homo sapiens neanderthalis. They were subspecies. If my knowledge of biology serves me right, subspecies are still similar enough to each other to produce fertile offspring. That's how it works with wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus domesticus).

So technically, Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species.


Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, . . .

Why the did? That's the whole goal of evolution: to fit their surroundings.


This seems to suggest to me that our evolution is not only affected by natural selection, but also by the environment.

I believe Darwin came to the same conclusion.


While we're on this subject, how long do homo sapiens as we know them date back to?

I think it's about 10,000 years ago.

Alsophia Theophilos
08-26-04, 07:26 PM
"There's no reason to suspect that the feedback from our brains into our endocrine system has undergone a qualitative change in the last couple of centuries." Fraggle Rocker
I would hold that indeed there has been a change if the "feedback" happens to be how we think of ourselves in relation to our environment, and that this would apply to Japanese who are not only eating better but feel themselves to be more "empowered" (yes, I would put our "feelings" into this "mental feedback" also), as also the Mexicans who have long since dried out their "mojado" stature. They, of all people, would have undergone a change in the way they think/feel about themselves in relation to the outer world.
Not to say that diet is not a factor in all this. I am saying that the endocrine system plays a major role in our "changes"/evolution, and I am pointing to the fact that it is one of the least understood systems of the human/animal body. If we wish to understand the "mechanics" of evolution, I feel that we cannot separate the self-conscious/sub-conscious aspect of being from the physical outer form. Rock on and good vibes.

WildBlueYonder
08-26-04, 10:44 PM
(yes, I would put our "feelings" into this "mental feedback" also), as also the Mexicans who have long since dried out their "mojado" stature.
Mojado? keeep your racist stuff to yourself & your friends. Everybody that came from somewhere else, had to get wet to get here


They, of all people, would have undergone a change in the way they think/feel about themselves in relation to the outer world.
Not to say that diet is not a factor in all this.
you as a Peruvian, should have known better, now lets get back to the topic

Fraggle Rocker
08-26-04, 11:26 PM
If my knowledge of biology serves me right, subspecies are still similar enough to each other to produce fertile offspring. That's how it works with wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis lupus domesticus).Actually, for many years that was the definition of a genus. Given free choice the various species would not choose to mate outside their species. But when constrained they could interbreed. Fertility of the offspring was not an issue.

Equus (horse x donkey) produce infertile offspring, mules. But canis (wolf x coyote), felis (cat x ocelot), cattle (bison x domestic) all produce fertile hybrids. As do a huge number of birds. It's easy to get birds to crossbreed in captivity, and macaws, cockatoos, conures, and Amazons all interbreed freely, each within their own genus, and have given rise to a rainbow of second- and third-generation hybrids.

Zoologists have gone crazy reclassifying genera since the advent of DNA analysis. They've created new genera and have now faced us with the perplexing problem that two species who are not even of the same genus can crossbreed. Cats and ocelots are supposedly now in seperate genera but that hasn't stopped every large pet shop from having ocicats for sale (which are quite fertile and into multi-generation hybridization). Ditto for the hyacinth macaw and the blue-and-gold macaw. Now in different genera, just as Mr. Colson finally got them to crossbreed and got the hybrid named after himself. Too early to tell whether they are fertile, but preliminary efforts were not promising.

Anyway, different subspecies will absolutely have fertile offspring. By definition they have the same number of chromosomes.

Hideki Matsumoto
09-30-04, 01:02 AM
Coloured people are more resistant to UVA radiation burns than "whites". This is due to the colourant Melanin present in the skin.

WildBlueYonder
10-04-04, 10:32 PM
Modern human beings are Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals were Homo sapiens neanderthalis.

They were subspecies. If my knowledge of biology serves me right, subspecies are still similar enough to each other to produce fertile offspring.

So technically, Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species.you just went back & forth on the same issue, you must really be John Kerry?
Study the following:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genus
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species&r=67
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040127085316.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030923065212.htm
I've read more scenarios; that we ate them, out-hunted them, inter-breeded, out-bred them, or that their cold-temp adaptations led to extinction after the ice age ended

Question:


While we're on this subject, how long do homo sapiens as we know them date back to?

your answer:

I think it's about 10,000 years ago.

and the answer is:
about 100,000, give or take a few k's
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm

Athelwulf
10-04-04, 11:16 PM
you just went back & forth on the same issue, you must really be John Kerry?

Care to tell me how I went back and forth on the same issue? I'm confident that that post was to the point. I'm also confident that I composed that post using the best of my knowlegde.

WildBlueYonder
10-04-04, 11:18 PM
Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, especially as far as the skin pigment is concerned.
check this out:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm

Attempts to create categories of biological races have centered on phenotypic differences. A phenotype is the entirety of traits that an individual possesses, including external characteristics such as eye color and shape, body size and shape, hair color and texture, and skin color. In recent years attempts have also been made to evaluate genotypic differences to justify biological races. Genotype refers to a person's genetic makeup. These attempts have tried to define clusters of characteristics in one population that are not found in other populations. These clusters supposedly would enable different populations to be divided into distinct races. Such attempts have failed, however, and what researchers have found is that biological variations exist on a cline rather than in delimited geographic clusters with gaps in between. A cline refers to a gradual change of a trait and its frequency from one place to another within a species or population. The change usually corresponds to some change in the environment across the geographic range of a species. Any boundary line drawn at a point along the continuum is therefore arbitrary. So, the idea of distinct races defined by hard-and-fast differences has fallen apart as anthropologists have studied the genetic and physical characteristics of human populations.

Although anthropologists thus no longer classify populations in terms of races, they do recognize that human populations exhibit diverse phenotypes. Different traits are, for example, very useful in the field of forensic anthropology. A forensic anthropologist must extract as much information as possible to assist in the identification of an individual. Part of that job requires identifying that individual's ancestral phenotype. Ancestral phenotypes are suites of traits that are associated with geographic populations. At first, this sounds a lot like a synonym for race; however, the difference lies in the lack of distinct divisions. The task simply relies on the idea that any given individual may have characteristics known to be common in a particular geographic area. Determining ancestry comes from familiarity with the clinal distribution of phenotypic characteristics.

from:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/dna.htm

The third Neanderthal sequence (published in 2000) came from the Vindija fossil remains, which date to approximately 33,000 years ago. The three sequences do not contain enough divergence for Homo sapiens to be included within a Neanderthal group. Therefore, the Neanderthals would not have contributed significantly to the modern gene pool.

The analysis shows an evolutionary divergence between modern human mtDNA and Neanderthal mtDNA prior to 550,000 years ago. Upon breaking down the 994 modern human sequences used into different geographical localities, researchers found that the Neanderthal sequences were no more similar to modern human sequences from any one locality. If Neanderthals had evolved into modern humans in Europe, then a greater similarity between Neanderthal and European sequences would be expected. However, this is not the case, and the genetic evidence corroborates fossil and archaeological evidence showing a distinct separation between Neanderthals and populations ancestral to modern Homo sapiens. interesting points in red bold lettering

WildBlueYonder
10-05-04, 01:27 AM
Care to tell me how I went back and forth on the same issue? I'm confident that that post was to the point. I'm also confident that I composed that post using the best of my knowlegde.

re-read it yourself


Originally Posted by Athelwulf

Modern human beings are Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals were Homo sapiens neanderthalis.

They were subspecies. If my knowledge of biology serves me right, subspecies are still similar enough to each other to produce fertile offspring.

So technically, Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species.

also, your answer:

Originally Posted by Athelwulf
I think it's about 10,000 years ago.
is off by about 90,000 years

Athelwulf
10-05-04, 02:14 AM
Ahem, Randolfo.

That doesn't help me. I still stand by my last statement. Prove to me that I'm going back and forth on the same issue.

Alsophia Theophilos
10-09-04, 08:58 PM
Randolfo
Is the 550,000 years a typo? "divergence between modern human mtDNA and Neanderthal mtDNA prior to 550,000 years ago"

Erring Flatley
10-27-04, 11:23 PM
To get away from the social side of this here is a real life example of color evolution. In Honolulu thirty years ago all the city's pidgeons were the ordinary dark color except for a few that someone let go at a large banyon tree in the Waikiki area. After ten years the gene for white had spread throughout the pidgeon population in Waikiki, but almost all the others in the city were still dark. After ten more years most of the pidgeons in all of Honolulu were white. And after ten more years the gene for white was spread over the entire island. The population of the island changed from a mostly dark color to a mostly white color in thirty years. It simply happened that white birds stood the bright sunlight better, gathered more food, laid more eggs,and slowly the gene for white spread through the population. During all that time the birds freely interbred without regard for color. It was simply the gene that spread through the population, not one group overtaking the other.

pbxoso
11-23-04, 08:22 PM
The latest Discover magazine has an excellent cover story on human genetics and race. The article points out that science hasn't answered the question of why so much varience exists between the races, especially given the fact that our genes are so similar. I remember from my biology class that the northern Chinese are as pale as the palest of caucasians and that was attributed to climate. Seems when they moved north they no longer needed darker skin to protect from sunlight.

alibim
11-25-04, 07:22 PM
Eat as many bananas as you want, but please explain to me how that effects the genes. Or are all you guys saying that as soon as the diet is diminished, we will revert to short five footers. I'd say at that time we'd have a lot of skinny six footers. You're completely missing the point.

Towards the end of WWII Holland (the Netherlands) was treated pretty much like a country-sized concentration camp by the Nazis ie starvation diets all round. Any children resulting from pregnancies during that time were pretty stunted individuals. Yet their own children & grandchildren, born to people with much better diets & healthcare, were back to normal height & size. In other words, it's the nature/nurture thing: environmental conditions have a significant effect on the manner in which genes are expressed. You may have the genetic potential to be 6ft 3ins but if you don't get the optimum diet, you probably won't achieve it. But the genes are still there to be passed on to your offspring.

wesmorris
11-25-04, 08:58 PM
Hmm..

It makes me wonder if evolution, or more specifically, mutation, it driven by the damage it takes in current form. If for instance, a serious vitamin D deficiency is incurred in a group for a long period of time, perhaps that very deficiency can damage their DNA in a way that when it is propogated, compensatory features emerge (e.g. darker skin or whatever). Perhaps that's part of how evolution is "driven"?

Just a passing thought.

CharonZ
11-26-04, 08:03 AM
No it won't. A similar stance was taken by Lamarck (though at that time DNA was unknown), however there is not a single instance known that a factor specifically changes DNA (inerhitably) that way.
The body might react to deficiency by differential expression of specific genes, but these have to be there already in the first place.

Ophiolite
11-26-04, 11:10 AM
The posts from CharonZ and alibim have reminded me of a clear piece of evidence for Lamarkian evolution! The Dutch are now the tallest people in Europe. Why? Very simple. This is a pre-adaptation to the flooding of the Netherlands that will occur as a result of rising sea levels: they can walk along the polders with their heads just above water. So,from a single data point we have incontrovertible proof of three contentious theories: Lamarkian evolution, precognition and global warming. That's value for money research!

wesmorris
11-26-04, 01:57 PM
there is not a single instance known that a factor specifically changes DNA (inerhitably) that way.

That's somewhat misleading given that DNA consists largely of "junk" as we know it.

WildBlueYonder
11-26-04, 04:21 PM
Randolfo
Is the 550,000 years a typo? "divergence between modern human mtDNA and Neanderthal mtDNA prior to 550,000 years ago"sorry, for not answering sooner, I did not receive any notices that someone had responded, so I didn't re-check this thread.

No, it's not a typo, scientists believe that there is a known rate of mutation in the mitichondrial DNA (the energy cell inside our cells, inherited only from mother). they use it as a clock, to tell the divergence of related species, see below:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/3/277
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8920257
http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-2372&volume=085&issue=05&page=0842

WildBlueYonder
11-26-04, 04:30 PM
That's somewhat misleading given that DNA consists largely of "junk" as we know it.
junk? then why carry the excess? there may be more to that "junk" than we know at the present, like so:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/12.12/EvidenceFoundfo.html

wesmorris
11-26-04, 08:09 PM
junk? then why carry the excess? there may be more to that "junk" than we know at the present, like so:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/12.12/EvidenceFoundfo.html

That was the point.

CharonZ
11-27-04, 04:41 AM
Actually I have no idea why that was misleading? The so-called junk DNA appears to have so far unknown functions (as e.g. in gene regulation), although some might also be some "left overs" which had no negative impact on the fitness. The article is focused on introns, although introns but there are whole regions which appear to be non-codogenic . As the article implied, newer findings also suggests a functions for these (not only for introns), but I fail to see your proposed directed mutation bit by environmental factors here.

wesmorris
11-27-04, 12:26 PM
I wasn't saying it's there, only that it could be given that lackign comprehension of the full scope of DNA's impact.

It was just a passing thought anyway. Seems like something like that must be in play for species to adapt as they do, but then again, I'm simply retarded when it comes to biology type stuff, so I'll shutup and yield to superior knowledge.

geistkiesel
11-27-04, 03:46 PM
check this out:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm


from:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/dna.htminteresting points in red bold lettering
Is it out of place here to suggest that there is more credible evidence that human beings were bred by alien colonists for their own manual labor purposes using earth and alien DNA mixtures? If nothing else this senario explains the convoluted attempts to explain away the huge accelerated advancement in the human species (Neandrthals included) far exceeding any credible and rational "evolution" mode. Similarly to the unbelievably rapid rise in the Sumarian culture from a state of dum-dum spear chuckers to sophistication in architecture, medicine, law, trade, astronomy, education, shipping ,transportation, organized warfare, mathamatics, business, religion, pyramid construction styled similarly in all parts of the earth, etc.

guthrie
11-27-04, 04:15 PM
Except that on the principle of Occams razor, it is invalid, since it massively multiplies the unknowns and complexities involved in human history, and lacks any real evidence.

rage_hard_cor
12-18-04, 08:20 PM
I'm very sure that all of you see that evolution occours when a genetic mutation happends at birth,which is either a few errors in the DNA make-up up or 20. With all of the (mentally-retarded) babies being born today, your telling me not one has had an extreame amount of errors and inherits a monkey/Human look.Most people believe that animals experience challenges in their life which create's changes in DNA, not possible....
The errors are birth defects

Correct me if im wrong

WildBlueYonder
12-19-04, 01:59 AM
I'm very sure that all of you see that evolution occours when a genetic mutation happends at birth,which is either a few errors in the DNA make-up up or 20. [/SIZE]DNA errors in complex lifeforms, usually end up dead or un-mated. many animals have such a narrow definition of what the 'best' mate is, that they will reject the 'inferior' one; some are so complex, like orchids & their pollenators, bird dances &/or calls, etc...
one error, may bring a favorable mutation, like Delta 32 for BP & HIV/AIDS or an unfavorable one like trisomy 21
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/002541.html

With all of the (mentally-retarded) babies being born today, your telling me not one has had an extreame amount of errors and inherits a monkey/Human look.
actually, MR can be caused by just one error, a third chromosome 21 where there should be only two
http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommon zSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_s_32zPzhtm#10148578


Most people believe that animals experience challenges in their life which create's changes in DNA, not possible....
The errors are birth defects
single cell organisms usually mutate to live when faced with challenges,birth defect in higher lifeforms cause death in the natural world, humans now let them live; premies, crack babies, simese twins, hydrocephalus, etc

Correct me if im wrong
need a biologist for that, I'm just an amateur like you

sniffy
12-21-04, 08:17 AM
New to this malarky so not sure i've got the right thread here but aren't i correct in thinking that scientifically there are no such thing as human races apart from the one to which we all belong? 'Race' is simply the human reaction/adaptation/evolutionary process to geological locations. ie we are where we live

Ophiolite
12-21-04, 08:49 AM
Sniffy,
you are broadly correct. We all find it easy to identify different 'races', whether in the general - caucasian, asian - or the more specific - scandinavian, mediterranean. But when we analyse the distribution of features we find there is a continuum. There is far less genetic variation in humans than in any other common large mammal. This was probably due to some sort of crisis around 80,000 years ago that almost wiped us out.

sniffy
12-21-04, 09:11 AM
Sniffy,
you are broadly correct. We all find it easy to identify different 'races', whether in the general - caucasian, asian - or the more specific - scandinavian, mediterranean. But when we analyse the distribution of features we find there is a continuum. There is far less genetic variation in humans than in any other common large mammal. This was probably due to some sort of crisis around 80,000 years ago that almost wiped us out.
It's just that science ought to be spreading the word much more vociferously about this (not a new 'theory' after all). It would be a useful and scientifically sound way to combat racism, nationalism and, indeed religious fundamentalism. In other words, genetically speaking, there is no reason why we "can't all just get along".

Ophiolite
12-21-04, 10:03 AM
It's a nice thought, but there are issues.

We are very much victims, as well as beneficaries, of our prehistoric heritage. For most of the time we have been human - lets call it 180,000 years - and for all our previous time as proto humans, we have been a tribal animal, living in small groups. Anyone we did not recognise was therefore from another group and potentially dangerous. That instinctive distrust of the unfamiliar was a survival trait until we became civilised (which remember means, literally, city dwellers). Now it is a liability.
Habits can change quickly - instincts take longer to craft.

okconor
12-21-04, 11:50 AM
At any one point in time in any healthy non stressed population of anything, there is homegenous (bell curve) spread in variation. Tall ones, small ones black ones yellow ones you name it it's there. Isolate a group and put it under some enviromental stress of any sort and the curve will be skewed in favour of those variants that are better able to survive. This is raciation. Variation is the key to survival for any species, too little and they can be extinct very rapidely. If the populations get repeatedly isolated and then reinstalled then speciation will not occur. A group that gets isolated for long enough so that genetic mutation occurs to a large enough extent can become a seperate species. Sub species can still interbreed, species generally do not - some may produce infertile hybridisation. Humans and Chimpanzees are different species which produce a infertile hybrid (a mule).

Africa has the widest variation in genetic variation, this underlines the out of Africa theory. As humans have spread and repeatedly got isolated then small variations are emphasised which are most suitable to the environment they find themselves in. Repeated waves of migration have "homogenised" these regional variations to the extent of not dividing us into different sub or species.

Mitochondrial DNA is not a certain guide to the age of Homo Sapiens, our ancestors though different species may have had the same Mitichondrial DNA.

sniffy
12-22-04, 04:30 AM
It's a nice thought, but there are issues.

We are very much victims, as well as beneficaries, of our prehistoric heritage. For most of the time we have been human - lets call it 180,000 years - and for all our previous time as proto humans, we have been a tribal animal, living in small groups. Anyone we did not recognise was therefore from another group and potentially dangerous. That instinctive distrust of the unfamiliar was a survival trait until we became civilised (which remember means, literally, city dwellers). Now it is a liability.
Habits can change quickly - instincts take longer to craft.

Ophiolite
Well yes of course we are 'victims' of our heritage both evolutionary and social but we are also sentient beings. Much of the behaviour that we have inherited is recognised and documented as a product of our evolution (not to even start on social conditioning). My original point was that it would benefit humankind greatly if more of what we know to be true were communicated to the widest possible audiences and here on the internet seems a good place. i'm just shocked to read in a science forum that people are still talking about race as if it were an evolutionary trait unaffected by climate and geography and that some folk still think some 'races' are more 'intelligent' than others. :eek:

okconor
12-22-04, 05:45 AM
isolate a group (by any means) and you will start to create a race. Climate, geography, culture anything. Use the term race to describe any group of people then you are stating that there are physiological differences between you. A pigeon from the USA is probably subtley different to one from Europe (prosuming there is no intermingling).

Skin colour, height, eye shape, teeth shape - these differences are all factors of variation and when reinforced by isolation become racial differences.Intelligence would be one of those variants but a very hard one to quantify. Intelligence, and the ability to use it, is the factor that has enabled man's success so it is a prerequisite that any race would have intelligence to survive in a new environment.

WildBlueYonder
12-23-04, 09:38 PM
isolate a group (by any means) and you will start to create a race. Climate, geography, culture anything. Use the term race "race" is a misnomer, "breed" is probably more correct, because you would have to isolate populations for longer periods than previously, to create what I think people want to mean by "race" (a separate species).

we're just like "dogs"; some of us are "rots", some "dobs", some "chi's", all can mate & breed.

woof, woof

Alsophia Theophilos
12-24-04, 12:17 PM
Browsing through this thread I noticed Spidergoat's question of 7-19-04, and its summary execution by Electric Fetus. I believe there are adequate indications that some mechanism of "evolution" might be at play in the way certain species, when abruptly faced with a strange environment, somehow miraculously change to survive. For instance the birds blown up on an island with a different ecology than the birdīs homeland. Faced with having to find a new food source, some developed beaks suited for sucking nectar, others developed beaks suited for eating fruits, etc. etc. And all this took place rapidly for their very survival was at stake. Now just what this mechanism is, Iīm not sure. I believe it has to do with the interplay of consciousness and the bodyīs endocrine system, and that yes, it can be effecting DNA. Of course you might notice that I have a lot of "mights", "could beīs" in my statements. I really donīt know. Iīm just repeating what this funny-looking green-eyed genie sitting on my shoulder is whispering to me. woowoo

okconor
12-27-04, 04:36 AM
i think you need to go to another department

Alsophia Theophilos
12-30-04, 06:14 PM
Which department would you recommend? Religion, or something to do with psychology???? I tried to lock up ol green-eyes, but he kept hiding under the bed. My point, to be serious for a moment, in all my posts is that consciousness itself is an integral part of all our "equations", and that in itself, to me, ties everything into that "unknown mystery" of life that some might call God. Om Shanti Remember Saint Bob Dylan said Einstein was being followed by a jealous priest. But I didn't say that. Ol green eyes did. I'll leave you guys alone for awhile as Iīm leaving Peru again, and I only have time to play while down here. Chau

mercurio
12-30-04, 11:34 PM
"race" is a misnomer, "breed" is probably more correct, because you would have to isolate populations for longer periods than previously, to create what I think people want to mean by "race" (a separate species).

we're just like "dogs"; some of us are "rots", some "dobs", some "chi's", all can mate & breed.

woof, woof

On that note: after several thousands of years of interbreeding dogs, we still have to see the first signs of that process leading to a new 'race', however much we do our best. A chihuahua could still mate with a danish dog.

He'd have to stand on a chair, but ok. You get my point, I hope. :)

spuriousmonkey
12-31-04, 02:53 AM
Because dogs were never bred with the goal to produce a new species?


A chihuahua could still mate with a danish dog.

Are there any records of such a mating that is unassisted by humans?

mercurio
12-31-04, 06:01 AM
Because dogs were never bred with the goal to produce a new species?



Are there any records of such a mating that is unassisted by humans?

I don't think anyone 'breeds' with the intention to create a new species. It 'just' happens, according to evolution theory. Any adaptation fitter than the previous one has a better chance of remaining. Most aren't. They are called mutations, abominations and probably end up flushed through a nameless toilet, or eaten by the mother. Happens more than you think, if the litter smells really wrong they're history.

Yet after a few thousand years, AFAIK there is not enough differences in the dog DNA to prohibit it. They may look different, but that's just variety, nothing more. Apart from 'technical' reasons there is no thing stopping you from creating a Chihuahua Dane.

spuriousmonkey
12-31-04, 06:19 AM
The technical reasons would be enough in nature to qualify them as separate species.

mercurio
12-31-04, 01:26 PM
Nope.

Species: [n] (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

says it all. DNA rules, not looks or relatively minor adaptations, sorry.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 06:12 AM
if one species penis doesn't fit in anothers vagina they cannot mate. They cannot interbreed. It has nothing to do with possibly matching DNA.

mercurio
01-01-05, 06:33 AM
I see your problem with the concept, but stricly speaking only until the separation has taken long enough for any changes to become encoded long-term into the DNA, the differences are really superficial.

That's simply how it works: if say a hominid has a 'sexual dysfunction' in the sense his reproductive organ is too big or too small for the general female organ, he will not reproduce, unless there is a similar female, at the right time etc. If there is, deviation from the norm can continue, if not, no reproduction, and end of problem.

So there is quite a bit of leeway in how oddly different members of one and the same species can look, and still be able to interbreed in most cases.

Same goes for humans. Most reasons inhibiting interbreeding are social, political and racist. Apartheid does not prevent mixed races though, although some people find the mere thought of interbreeding equally 'impossible' as if it were truly physical, which it isn't.

So, to come back to the topic, there are no 'races' of humans, or 'dogs'. Just different breeds, until finally one day one group of humans splits off that NO other humans can have offspring with, even in vitro. Only then can we speak of a different species, really.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 07:37 AM
whatever.

If that is what you think.

mercurio
01-01-05, 08:30 AM
And so does every biologist not living on planet spuriousmonkey, if you like to have it put that way. :(

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 10:34 AM
Every biologist minus one I would think. Happen to have a PhD in evo-devo.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 11:07 AM
Nope.

Species: [n] (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

says it all. DNA rules, not looks or relatively minor adaptations, sorry.

Let's go over your post again then:

Species: [n] (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed


You conclude that DNA says it all, although DNA is not mentioned in the original statement. Could it be that maybe your brain made an association of DNA to this statement when you read it, but that possibly your brain jumped to conclusions.

Obviously 2 organisms cannot mate if their respective DNA is too disimilar. But could it be that the original statement also includes other causes for the inability to interbreed? Such as physical isolation (a major cause of evolution of new species), behavioral isolation (a major cause of the evolution of new species), and maybe also physiological incompatiblity?

In the case of dogs they are classified as one species, because they are what you could call 'a freak of nature'. They have been shaped by another species, us humans. This human species has the technical capability of letting the Danish dog mate with the tiny chihuahua. But as I said in the first post. In nature they could not interbreed because of physiological incompatibilities and would rapidly diverge into separate species.

A related question is: when a species is different enough to be a separate species. There is never a single point in time when it suddenly is clear that a species is a species. But the chihuahua and danish dog would fill such different niches in nature and show such different physical properties that they could easily be classfied as different species.

Obviously neither the Danish dog or chihuahua would ever survive in nature as a species for ery long, so speculation on this matter is purely theoretical in nature.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 11:14 AM
Speciation occurs when two (or more possibly) subsets of a formerly interbreeding population become reproductively isolated.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#cichlid-fish

According to this definition the two dog breeds would have undergone speciation if these species were found in nature. They are reproductively isolated.

mercurio
01-01-05, 01:14 PM
Every biologist minus one I would think. Happen to have a PhD in evo-devo.

Good for you!

I mean that btw, but you should also realise that it's more important if somebody bothered to hire you after getting it.

'not living on planet spuriousmonkey', like I said. :)

I know DNA is not holy, but I also know taxonomy IS based on that somewhat largish distinction.

Also that if you look closer and closer, definitions get iffier and iffier. Bacteria are a disaster to properly classify since they exchange their DNA with other bacteria at a ridiculous rate, they found.

But you have to make distinctions somewhere and it that case DNA is a pretty good classifier.

Dogs are a species 'shaped by' humans, indeed, but not created. Freaks, also true.

Like us. Neotenic freaks. That's why we get along so well.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 01:55 PM
Maybe you should take you head out of the clouds and try to be open minded. You might learn something.

mercurio
01-01-05, 01:56 PM
Yeah, whatever.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 02:03 PM
troll.

mercurio
01-01-05, 02:30 PM
If anyone here is trolling here... but I guess the remark about getting hired struck too close to home for comfort.

Have fun.

[unsubscribe from thread]

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 02:37 PM
I wasn't even going to bother with a proper response after your first arrogant response, but then I supported my position and countered yours. The only thing you could do is to claim authority. All biologists think like me you claim. Obviously a false statement. And of course, if the authority claim fails you can always claim that I am a lousy scientist.

It could have easily turned into something productive. And as usual nowadays everybody knows best, without even thinking about the others remarks.

spuriousmonkey
01-01-05, 02:47 PM
For instance, did you ever bother to check your position before continueing in the discussion? Other than to find a single quote? Did you ever check what biologists think on the matter?

I did.

okconor
01-02-05, 08:01 AM
You two should calm down, you're getting hysterical.

Man has played at being God with dogs! Man became the selector, isolating differences as nature does. OK a chih is the same species as a great dane, but give or take a few thousand years they could break off into a different sub-species (producing an infertile hybrid) and then into a species.

As an example it serves well to educate the non beleivers in evolution of how it works and what humanity have done with the knowledge - whether they realised the principle of it or not.

Egoist
01-13-05, 01:50 PM
Look at the recent study on foxes... thru selection a virtually new species of foxes was created that is extremely tame, to a point of being dog like. These foxes will soon be available as pets... this was done with a few generations.. to think that human races do not differ do certain degrees based on selective breeding (ie jews only marrying jews) and isolation is extremely ignorant...

Fraggle Rocker
01-16-05, 09:33 PM
Nope.

Species: [n] (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

says it all. DNA rules, not looks or relatively minor adaptations, sorry.Huh?????? That's more like the definition of a genus, not a species. All species of genus Ara (macaws) can interbreed and you can find the spectacularly colored and highly expensive hybrids in any major pet shop. All species of genus Canis (dogs) can interbreed. Wolf-dogs, coy-dogs, coy-wolves, and jackal hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity. All species of genus Equus (horses) can interbreed. Mules, zebrasses, etc., are widely known. Amazon parrots, Pheucticus grosbeaks, swine, felines... Inter-species hybrids are common.

Wrong definition completely.

WildBlueYonder
01-17-05, 01:39 PM
Huh?????? That's more like the definition of a genus, not a species.

All species of genus Canis (dogs) can interbreed. Wolf-dogs, coy-dogs, coy-wolves, and jackal hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity. All species of genus Equus (horses) can interbreed. Mules, ...

Wrong definition completely.
I think the point is that all so-called human 'races' can & do interbreed with healthy, viable, non-sterile offspring, whereas those people that wish humans were different 'races', wish that weren't true

http://www.lovelongears.com/about_mules.html

Big D
02-12-05, 04:59 PM
Recently I've been curious about why the the different human races evolved to fit their climate, especially as far as the skin pigment is concerned. Does black skin really help well enough for the black people to generally evolve it based on natural selection?
As in the people with darker skin generally survived and reproduced more while lighter skin people gradually. One fluke person has a bit blacker skin than the rest, and as a result he survives way better?:bugeye:

This seems to suggest to me that our evolution is not only affected by natural selection, but also by the environment. Somehow the DNA for pigment makes the skin blacker and blacker because of the amount of sun its getting. I haven't heard of any of this, so I'm curious about how it happened.

While we're on this subject, how long do homo sapiens as we know them date back to?

Yes: Such differences are real and demonstrated by growing scientific evidence.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_insight.html

okconor
02-13-05, 05:05 AM
Huh?????? That's more like the definition of a genus, not a species. All species of genus Ara (macaws) can interbreed and you can find the spectacularly colored and highly expensive hybrids in any major pet shop. All species of genus Canis (dogs) can interbreed. Wolf-dogs, coy-dogs, coy-wolves, and jackal hybrids occur both in the wild and in captivity. All species of genus Equus (horses) can interbreed. Mules, zebrasses, etc., are widely known. Amazon parrots, Pheucticus grosbeaks, swine, felines... Inter-species hybrids are common.

Wrong definition completely.

interspecies hybrids are usually infertile, and usually very rare in nature even if individuals were to mate frequently.
To say that a zebra and a new forest pony are different species is an unfortunate outcome of human classification attempts. Strictly speaking they are different sub species which can interbreed to produce an infertile hybrid.

A fox and a wolf are a different species which very very very rarely produce.
issue

watch your definitions, they stand on the shoulders of fallible men

Fraggle Rocker
02-13-05, 06:02 PM
interspecies hybrids are usually infertile, and usually very rare in nature even if individuals were to mate frequently."Usually," but it happens often enough to not be remarkable. We are most familiar with horse-ass hybrids -- mules -- so people use that as their model and they are infertile. Not so with most of the genera I specifically cited. They're into the fourth generation of Ara macaw hybrids, a beautiful lavender color. Amazon parrots have been hybridized so much and are so fertile that conservationists are panicked that some of them will get loose in the wild and mix up the gene pool of the few remaining wild Amazons. Pheucticus grosbeaks have been cross-breeding for enough generations that one showed up at our feeder in California, when the original interbreeding happened in the Midwest. You can find any generation of wolf-coyote hybrid you care to specify. (Given that we now know that wolves and dogs are a single species. That's posted here in a number of threads.)
To say that a zebra and a new forest pony are different species is an unfortunate outcome of human classification attempts. Strictly speaking they are different sub species which can interbreed to produce an infertile hybrid.No one's suggesting that the hybrids are new species, although the commercially or sentimentally valuable ones like mules, Camelot macaws, ocicats, and coydogs are given names to facilitate discussion. But a good many of them are indeed fertile. Hybridization of psittacines is rampant, commercially viable, and a topic of heated debate between aviculturists and ecologists.
A fox and a wolf are a different species which very very very rarely produce.You don't seem to know as much about taxonomy as you make out. Foxes are not genus canis. Wolves and foxes never mate, they don't have enough of the right pheromones and mating rituals to attract each other. Genus canis includes only coyotes, jackals, and wolves. Wolves embrace dogs and dingos, animals that were once thought to be separate species.

geistkiesel
02-24-05, 11:57 AM
I have always wondered what the mechanism was that separated a species line such that the one time sexual activity between members of a species ceased after branching. I can understand birds with better wings having advantages and so on , but that branching of a species by sexual selection only seems strange as if the branching was arbitrary, a selection without the element of fittest being a significant issue- sexual branching for sheer branching sake?

An alternative to this line of thought is that branching of the species occured for other normal {fittest} reasons and that the sexual cut off was a secondary and coincidental and unrelated affect. If this then the mechanism cannot be universal in application.

is there any geological data (or other data ) that throws light on this issue?


Can some one correct me here.

geistkiesel

itopal
03-03-05, 02:32 PM
Isolation leads to breeding separation. . .

As a population moves; migrates; local variations + local breeding = increase in biological diversity.

okconor
03-04-05, 04:38 AM
[QUOTE=Fraggle Rocker]" Foxes are not genus canis.

They are, foxes are members of the Jackal family, which is part of the genus Canis.

Wolves, coyotes and dogs are members of the same genus, but not the same family as jackals. It is generally more common for members of the same family to produce hybrids than otherwise.

The point I am trying to make is that the attempts of humans at classification is flawed.

The more seperate a species are in evolutionary and geographical terms the more unlikely they are to interbreed and produce offspring. The Macaws you speak of, though classified as different species are barely so, and hence easily produce viable hybrids. The Macaws are almost like races, as are the finches of the galapogus and yet they are classified by us as different species. Zebra, Donkeys and horses are also classified by us as different species but they are radically more different to each other than the Macaws, and they don't produce viable hybrids.

The ease at which animals can interbreed is more to do with their genetic make up, and their chromosomal count. At the moment 99.9% of humans have the same chromosomal count, so equal numbers of alleles can be interchanged at conception. A group or "race" isolated for long enough could have enough genetic mutations to produce different chromosomal counts or incompatible genes and become different species. It would then be difficult (not impossible) for them to interbreed back with the parent population. Given enough time and isolation (geograhical, behavioural) they could change more and become a different family as the Jackals and the dogs did millions of years ago.

okconor
03-04-05, 05:08 AM
I have always wondered what the mechanism was that separated a species line such that the one time sexual activity between members of a species ceased after branching. I can understand birds with better wings having advantages and so on , but that branching of a species by sexual selection only seems strange as if the branching was arbitrary, a selection without the element of fittest being a significant issue- sexual branching for sheer branching sake?

An alternative to this line of thought is that branching of the species occured for other normal {fittest} reasons and that the sexual cut off was a secondary and coincidental and unrelated affect. If this then the mechanism cannot be universal in application.

is there any geological data (or other data ) that throws light on this issue?


Can some one correct me here.

geistkiesel

Evolution of species occurs in two ways. Enviromental and behavioural.

Humans brain size has evolved extremely rapidely (see Prof Ed Barnes). This suggests that it has been a selective pressure, it could have been One or other or both of the forces described.

Probably a bit of both.

The Alpha male of our ape ancestors who was better at manipulating tools and understanding it's environment etc had the bigger harem. He was chosen by more females to mate with, and had more offspring than other males, so his genetic line was more prevalent.

Then a bit of isolation occured. Migration, desease, climate change, geological catastrophies you name it.

The behavioural trait continued and then Enviromental isolation would occur again. And so on. Waves of change.

The Sultan Suleyman the Magnificant sired 150 children as did the Pharoah King Tut.

If lets say for arguments sake each of these children managed to have 3 offspring who reached maturity and had 3 children of their own, then from 1500 ad to now the successful, aggresive, whatever, line of suleyman would be responsible for 15 generations multiplying out at 2 billion people! That's evolution.

Polygamy is the tool of evolution, but polygamy is outlawed in our society.
So what does that mean for human evolution - a new thread I think.

Big D
03-05-05, 10:34 AM
These racial patterns make up what is called a "life-history" or "reproductive strategy." The traits evolved together to meet the trials of life-survival, growth, and reproduction. Race differences make sense in terms of human evolution. Modern humans evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 110,000 years ago. Orientals and Whites split about 40,000 years ago.

The further north people went "Out of Africa," the more evolution selected for larger brains, slower growth rates, greater longevity, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, and rule-following are cultural manifestations of these gene-based evolutionary strategies. Surviving in cold environments required increased intelligence and larger brains. The wider hips of white and Asian women evolved to allow them to give birth to larger brained babies.

What are the implications of this research? One is that we should stop blaming white racism for all society's problems. If blacks are good at certain sports, and Orientals do well in schools, it cannot be because each group is trying to "overcome the prejudice of white society," because each group shows the same pattern of strengths and weaknesses in their countries of origin.

Sometimes it is claimed by those who argue that race is just a social construct that the human genome project shows that because people share roughly 99% of their genes in common, that there are no races. This is silly. Human genes are 98% similar to chimpanzee genes and 90% similar to those in mice, which is why these species make good laboratory animals. But no one claims that mice, chimpanzees, and humans are nearly the same! That would be laughable. Similarly, although men and women are genetically 99% the same, it is foolish to believe that sex is just a "social construction."

Much confusion arises because there are several sets of genetic measures. A much more realistic story comes from looking at the 3.1 billion base pairs that make up the 30,000 genes.

People differ in 1 out of every 1,000 of these base pairs. Each change in a base pair can alter a gene. Technically, base pair differences are called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The 99% figure is based on DNA sequences which do not differ between people or even most mammals. These can give the impression that human groups and chimpanzees are almost identical because these genes code for similar internal organs, eyes, hands, and so on. Though humans and mice look very different, any anatomy student can tell you, even their internal bone structures are very similar.

The February 23, issue of Science magazine reported that 2.8 million SNPs were already being sold by Celera Genomics to scientists trying to crack the code of human behavior. Base pair differences are important and SNPs clump together in races. Just one change in the base pair for hemoglobin, for example, causes sickle-cell anemia, from which many Blacks suffer. Other base pair differences affect IQ, aggression, and mental illness. The 3.1 billion base pairs provide plenty of room for large racial differences.

If races did not exist, we would not find the same racial pattern all around the world and over time. The scientific evidence shows that the politically correct mantra "race is just skin deep" is a case of deep denial.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_insight.html

Frisbinator
03-05-05, 10:58 AM
Surviving in cold environments required increased intelligence and larger brains

That's absurd. Things like this that you're basing your conclusion's on is purely skeptical.

In China, there were revolts because they wanted to change the school week to 5 days instead of 6. Are you going to tell me that that is evolutionary, and not cultural?

If how much someone applies themself in school, how well they follow rules, what types of sports they participate in, is not cultural, then WHAT TYPES OF BEHAVIOR/ACTIVITES ARE CULTURAL??

If your arguments were true, then the Asian countries would always led the world in demonstrations of intelligence, which they haven't and African American would have no hope of making better grades than a person of asian decent, which they sometimes do, and I will tell you that YES, white racism is a HUGE contributing factor to the high crime rate in African Americans today, because it is not GENETIC, it is CULTURAL, it is the environment where someone is born and raised that influences him/her the greatest into a life of crime.

I'll be the first to say YES a huge percentage of caucasians HAVE been holding African American's down since the Emancipation Proclamation (and before obviously), YES it has made it more difficult for African Americans to achieve financial success, among other types, YES it has led a lot of people to live in these terrible poor areas where drugs, alcohol and violence are rampant, and NO IT IS NOT GENETIC!

Frisbinator
03-05-05, 10:59 AM
(In other words, I disagree wholeheartedly and beneath the epithelial layers, we are identical. It is culture that shapes us.)

Avatar
03-05-05, 11:10 AM
What I see, Frisbinator, is that in your post there is just populistic shouting while Big D has logically explained scientifical data. I agree with Big D.
p.s. you talk too much about africans living in america, not actual africans in africa, which are a nice example of primitivism.
p.p.s. I think that most african americans are primitive too, all that hip hop, rap "culture", etc.
p.p.p.s. not all asians are simmilar and so are not all africans, I think that Big D talks about the statistical average.

okconor
03-05-05, 04:06 PM
What worries me more about Big D is that he is (or she) is obviously well read, but has gained their knowledge with a presupposition of whites superiority to blacks, which seems to be the essence of what he is trying to indicate. Avatar is obviously an idiot and shall be ignored forthwith.

There are many flaws in Big D's argument. There is no evidence to say that Orientals and whites evolved from the same group which split from Africa . Whites do not have larger brains than africans, nor are they necessarily more intelligent. There is a theory that the white race is one which is the result of a cross between Neandertals (hardly superior) and the first migrating (black) true homo sapiens - see neandertal cave paintings. If you want to be intelligent rather than just sound it, you've got to sift through information.

Africa, as a whole has the greatest genetic diversity in humans of any continent in the world. You will find the tallest and the smallest, the fattest and the thinnest, the darkest and (well maybe not) the whitest, and the most intelligent and the most stupid.

White superiority resulted in stable climate and the bread basket moving from northern Africa to middle Europe and greater ferocity of white people over other nations. India was a far more sophisticated culture and more advanced in many fields as was china, than Europian - they just were in decline when Europe was rising. One day it will be the white mans turn to go down, and I doubt that fat white complacent ignorant Americans will be the master race then.

Race is not a social construct, it is genetic - that is true. And I agree, one should not blame white peoples prejudice for societys problems. Every race I have known are racist - especially the chinese. Unfortunately, that's nature. A chiuahua would rather mate with a chihuahua than a Rottwellier, they're still dogs though.

Black people seem to be better sportsmen, and suffer less from back problems, can I then presume that they are more evolutionarily advanced to walking around on two legs than white people are?

But please, keep your prejudice suppositions out of it, I get the impression you're more intelligent than that.

Avatar
03-05-05, 04:14 PM
Avatar is obviously an idiot and shall be ignored forthwith.
aaw, you don't agree that all africans should be sent to Venus to dig volcanos? :(

whitewolf
03-05-05, 07:04 PM
No, you will NOT send Africans to Venus under any circumstances, you will take them to Mars.
You're not an idiot, but you like whatever licks your ass and puts you on a pedestal and that gives you a very biased perspective which is inaplicable in any reasoning.

Another thing that worries me in Big D's argument is the assumption that wider hips in women are for larger sizes of the baby's body parts. Whatever the variety in size of the hips, the size of vagina is pretty much the same, is it not? Also, there are many European women with narrow hips and many African women with wide hips.
There is plenty of tradition, discipline, and rule-following in African communities. The fact that many of those traditions are still around today is plain evidence. Aggression is just as necessary when hunting in a northern forest as it is when hunting in Africa. So yeah, Big D doesn't come off sounding too smart. =P
About which race is smarter: the smartest college students in America are Asian (or at least it was so last time I was interested in college acceptance rates).

Big D
03-05-05, 09:11 PM
What worries me more about Big D is that he is (or she) is obviously well read, but has gained their knowledge with a presupposition of whites superiority to blacks, which seems to be the essence of what he is trying to indicate. I NEVER said one group was or is superior to another, that is your opinion or conclusion.

I have just pointed out their differences.

In Fact it is yourself that has made this statement:



White superiority resulted in stable climate and the bread basket moving from northern Africa to middle Europe and greater ferocity of white people over other nations. One day it will be the white mans turn to go down, and I doubt that fat white complacent ignorant Americans will be the master race then.

Big D
03-05-05, 09:19 PM
First you write this statement:



Another thing that worries me in Big D's argument is the assumption that wider hips in women are for larger sizes of the baby's body parts. Whatever the variety in size of the hips, the size of vagina is pretty much the same, is it not?

And then you write this one:


About which race is smarter: the smartest college students in America are Asian (or at least it was so last time I was interested in college acceptance rates).

Make up your mind.

Big D
03-05-05, 09:25 PM
and I will tell you that YES, white racism is a HUGE contributing factor to the high crime rate in African Americans today, because it is not GENETIC, it is CULTURAL, it is the environment where someone is born and raised that influences him/her the greatest into a life of crime.

I'll be the first to say YES a huge percentage of caucasians HAVE been holding African American's down since the Emancipation Proclamation (and before obviously), YES it has made it more difficult for African Americans to achieve financial success, among other types, YES it has led a lot of people to live in these terrible poor areas where drugs, alcohol and violence are rampant, and NO IT IS NOT GENETIC!Remember it is right here in AMERICA where blacks have BY FAR the greatest standards of living then ANYWHERE else in the world. Thats why the blacks in AMERICA only complain about AMERICA but would NEVER leave.
In fact, it is blacks from ALL OVER THE WORLD that risk their lives everyday just for a chance to live in AMERICA.

In fact, as blacks have gained more "freedom" to do as they want in America the failures of blacks have increased:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/506187/

whitewolf
03-05-05, 09:43 PM
Make up your mind

I don't have to make up anything. Asians come out smarter today because they study more. They do so because they're used to living in highly populated, highly competitive Asian societies. Americans (blacks and whites etc of various descent) are theoretically placed in the same environment but they study less, because they think it's not kewl through most of their school years. Current cultural difference, not difference in size of any body parts.

okconor
03-06-05, 03:10 AM
[QUOTE=Big D]The further north people went "Out of Africa," the more evolution selected for larger brains, slower growth rates, greater longevity, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsivity. Advanced planning, self-control, and rule-following are cultural manifestations of these gene-based evolutionary strategies. Surviving in cold environments required increased intelligence and larger brains.

I think the conclusion that you think whitish people are more intelligent than dark people is a fair assumption from this statement - wouldn't you?

okconor
03-06-05, 03:11 AM
Remember it is right here in AMERICA where blacks have BY FAR the greatest standards of living then ANYWHERE else in the world. Thats why the blacks in AMERICA only complain about AMERICA but would NEVER leave.
In fact, it is blacks from ALL OVER THE WORLD that risk their lives everyday just for a chance to live in AMERICA.

In fact, as blacks have gained more "freedom" to do as they want in America the failures of blacks have increased:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/506187/

Absolute bollocks mate

Big D
03-06-05, 12:46 PM
and I doubt that fat white complacent ignorant Americans will be the master race then.

A person's race may affect his or her -- but especially his -- obesity and fitness levels, claims a new study in the December issue of Chest.

After evaluating 5,069 people referred for an exercise stress test to detect coronary artery disease, Dr. Carl J. Lavie, director of the exercise laboratories at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in New Orleans, and his colleagues found black patients overall had a higher level of obesity and a lower exercise capacity than white patients.

"I don't think it is a surprise that African-Americans had a high level of obesity," Lavie said. "Other studies indicate that as well."
http://health.yahoo.com/news/53231

FAT LAZY and STUPID = AFRICAN AMERICAN

Avatar
03-06-05, 01:36 PM
You must be american if you don't know the word. Anyways, in English bollox or bollocks means bullshit in your common tongue.
And more to that, this does not have any place in the discussion of the topic title above.

Big D
03-06-05, 06:05 PM
You must be american if you don't know the word. Anyways, in English bollox or bollocks means bullshit in your common tongue.
And more to that, this does not have any place in the discussion of the topic title above.
I am American,

Hey how come blacks are so violent in England too?

If the latest figures for drugs-related gun crime within London's black communities are anything to go by, then 2002 is not shaping up to be a good year for Operation Trident, the city's specialist team focusing on crime committed by black criminals against black communities.
According to the Metropolitan Police's own predictions, 2002 is set to see another massive rise in shootings, murders and attempted murders as a small number of gangs wield an enormous and terrifying sway in pockets of the capital.

Last year in London, there were 156 shootings within the black community, an increase of 96% on the previous year. The total included 19 murders.

So far this year, there have been 65 firearms incidents, up more than 60% on the same period last year. Eight people have died.

Scotland Yard set up Operation Trident to try to halt the rise in these "black on black" shootings.

The police argue that for the media to ignore this type of crime, because it is happening largely within a minority community, almost amounts to racism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/the_hidden_victims.stm

I guess everyone in England is racist too, because we know it is not the blacks fault at all.

Avatar
03-06-05, 06:11 PM
Hey how come blacks are so violent in England too?
I wouldn't know, I'm not English and I don't live there, but my sister does and she is highly annoyed with chavs (as they are called there).
Meet chavs -> http://www.chavscum.co.uk/
Most of them are of african descent.

okconor
03-07-05, 08:29 AM
I was at School, in the UK, during the 70's, in the second largest school in the country, where 60% of the pupils were not English.

The most nasty, violent people were the English, especially directed at the blacks. Some of the most horrific viciousness I have ever seen. When you see "a clockwork orange" that is what the English can be like. The black kids were just as intelligent as a group and generally nicer and a bit more fun than the sad white English.

Gradually, I have grown up and I'm sorry to say I have no black friends any more - I don't know why, we just seem to grow apart. When I have seen my friends from school most of the black kids never got any further, very few went to University or if they did nothing came of it. It did for the Asians and the white kids, just not the blacks.

Often their families were screwed up, not unusual for dislocated peoples, i've seen it in my "race". Destroy somebodies culture and it often takes them generations to recover. Look at Arabic society, once the most developed, culturally and scientifically. The Moors in Spain were tolerant to all religions Jews, christians, any one. Rome fought to return Spain to christianity fighting against the whole population. With Islam destroyed by the crusaders and the culture collapsed and fragmented, and the violence and discord we now see is the result.

White people have dominated the world over the last few centuries because they are more violent, and more organised about it. Look at your own country and how it slaughtered the Indian Nations.

African tribespeople fighting for the allies in the first and second world wars where disgusted at the mechanised slaughter, invented by that wonderfully cohesive nation the US of A. And now they copy it.

I feel pity for you. You've not learnt by our mistakes, or your own.

Big D
03-07-05, 10:42 AM
Hey okconor,

Would you please get the word out on how bad white people are?

Because ALL people of color ALL OVER THE WORLD are risking their lives just for a CHANCE to live amongst white people.

EXAMPLE:
Officials in Tunisia say at least 21 North African migrants trying to reach Italy have drowned.

Government officials the boat on which the migrants were travelling sank.

The boat had 75 illegal migrants - 70 Moroccans and five Tunisians - on board when it sank more than 270 miles southeast of Tunis.
http://7am.com/cgi-bin/wires02.cgi?1000_2004100405.htm

If you noticed okconer, I ALWAYS bring links or facts to back up my point.

You never do.

J.B
03-07-05, 01:47 PM
The most nasty, violent people were the English, especially directed at the blacks. Some of the most horrific viciousness I have ever seen.
Do you have a link or any proof of this or is this just your own little world?

Ophiolite
03-08-05, 02:12 AM
okonnor is describing his own experiences. He is is not, as far as I can see claiming these can necessarily be extrapolated to humanity at large. He is offering these observations as a distinct counterpoint to BigD's contentions.
BigD asks for facts. BigD are you declaring that the destruction of the cultureof the indigenous peoples of North America and a large proportionof their population is not a fact? You appear to be confusing facts with internetlinks. They aren't the same thing, you know.

okconor
03-08-05, 04:40 AM
You should use the links to inform you, not to validate you're own prejudices. I don't need links to bolster my own ego.

Cultures rise and decline for an enormous variety of reasons. You guys are using this fact to emphasise your belief that black people are inheritantly bad and white people are inheritantly good. But it's natural for you to feel like that. You unwittingly answer the thread question. Prejudice, racial competativenous, geographical distribution - these are how the different races evolved.

Sure, there is a problem with black culture in the UK at the moment. It wasn't so apparent when I was a kid, but I can see it now, though I think it's getting better - they have enriched our nation. But it's their culture, not their genes where their problems are.

People used to say the same thing about the Irish, the Italians, and the Indians in the USA. One day they'll be saying it about white Caucasiens - or the barbarians as the Romans used to call us.

A few years of poverty, famine, desease, suppression and drought would destroy your culture - then I wonder how you would behave. People rely on society and laws to be civilised, take them away and they revert to their animal instincts.

I am not insecure like Big D, Avatar and now JB. I don't feel threatened. You guys need to see more of the world. I'm not suprised you're bigoted, having spent so much of your life in little town America, discovering yourself in the local Mall. Do you know where Africa, or Europe is?

Avatar
03-08-05, 06:10 AM
Do you know where Africa, or Europe is?
Actually I do, I live in Europe :p

A few years of poverty, famine, desease, suppression and drought would destroy your culture
Not really, 600 years of occupation didn't destroy my culture.

then I wonder how you would behave
ummm, like now?

okconor
03-08-05, 06:54 AM
[QUOTE=Avatar]Actually I do, I live in Europe :p

Not really, 600 years of occupation didn't destroy my culture.

which culture is that, nazi?

goofyfish
03-08-05, 08:57 AM
Discussion no longer relevant to opening topic; thread closed.