Evolution Of Humans In The Last Hundred Years.

Marquis

Very few is correct. The human genome has up to 30,000 'genes'. The genetic requirement for varying skin colour, as the most obvious 'racial' difference, uses a maximum of less than 20 'genes'. In fact, the genetic difference between a dark equatorial African and my own pallid complexion is probably less than 10 'genes', taken as a population average.

By comparison, the average difference between two people from the same population is somewhat more than 30 'genes'. (That's the average. The difference between two individuals is greater.)

Racial differences do exist, but the number of genes involved makes the genetic difference too trivial for that difference to be classifiable as different races. Better just to think of humanity as a very large number of populations, each of which is genetically different to the others by a trivial amount.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Very Very interesting spidy man . My genetic Family is mapping D.N.A. in all the male surnames of family members they can get there hands on. The results so far talk about the mutations. I don't know if it is specific to cross breeding or some other factor they talk about, but as a troll it sounds like evolution to me. Anytime I here Mutation it makes me think this, but I also heard there has not been a genetic mutation in humans for a very long time . (Discovery channel ) This show talked about external cosmic forces disrupting D.N.A. strands ? like times when the magnetic fields of earth were week allowing more cosmic radiation to penetrate bodies of living entities .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are all sorts of mutations present in the human genome. I can suggest one, autism. In some areas of society, high functioning autism is actually a benefit. Beneficial mutations could be all around us, just waiting for the right conditions to thrive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that is not clearly saying that at all.

In science we do not prove things, we disprove them, or we gather sufficient evidence in support of them that to withhold provisional acceptance would be churlish.

I described exactly what should and does happen in science: if a speculation can find supporting facts (solid evidence) it grows in stature. If there are no supporting facts then it is wholly irrational to cling to the speculation. Frankly, it is more than irrational, it is just plain stupid.

You seem confuse and conflate evidence and proof. The two are quite different beasts, which fact you would know had you any education in science.

There you are again with this children's colouring book idea of science, where proofs abound. Proofs are for mathematical theorems, not scientific theories.

Of course it frigging does. Do you have a 2nd class honours in the art of the bleedin' obvious? But the speculation must be followed either by evidence, or a carefully crafted series of tests that could falsify the core of the speculation. It should not be followed by yet more speculation and obfuscating word salad.

Based on what I have seen here, that situation would not last for very long. We look for innovative solutions that can be implemented effectively in a hostile envionment and that bring finacial benefits to our clients and ourselves. We are not interested in airy fairy speculations. Sure, we want ideas that are radical and off the wall, but they also need to be grounded in reality and to be solid enough that they can be tested. More to the point the presenter of the idea has to be ready to deal with a barrage of criticism by proposing tests, or offering corroborating ideas, not sounding off with yet more speculation. If you want to wafffle, visit a bar.

And that follow up consists - in the absence of immediate supporting evidence - of proposals for how the speculation can be falsified. How many posts and pages do we have now and still from the other side all we get is hand waving.

Standard rules on any science forum: when you propose a non-standard idea, that idea should be supported by proper citations. When you claim research exists, you are expected to provide citations for that research. On plenty of decently run forums you would be run off in pretty short order for failing to follow that rule.

You, however, may take the role of a phillistine. It suits you and allows others to know you for what you are.

 

Yes, actually it is. You said it, and now you're bending over backwards trying to pretend otherwise. Do I need to quote it again?

I mean, if you can clearly demonstrate that that sentence means something other than what it does, go ahead. Do try to avoid further prevarication in the attempt.

And what is it you attempt to disprove, or gather evidence for? Hmm?
Oh, yes. Of course. Unproven speculation.

It is beginning to sound to me that you're often a little late on the scene, as it were. In your case, it becomes apparent it would usually be someone else's speculation. And someone else who followed an idea to a demonstrable point in the face of disappointment.
By the sounds of things, you're only "in" if that speculation has reached a point where you could present it to others, presumably in a search for further laurels and the respect of your peers.

That is your position, yes. I disagree; not with the first part, but with the second. You seem quite unable to grasp that.

Personally, I thank the powers that be for "irrational" people who refused to listen to the advice of those such as you.
Some of them were actually on to something, as it turns out, even if they couldn't demonstrate it to you at the time. Anyone with a modicum of insight into your character and a little pride, moreover, would probably think twice before bothering to do so.

I hope you noted the irony in your describing your conduct here so succinctly.

I'm smiling at the inference that it would be you who ended it.

Or you could ask for input.
Which, incidentally, was what the opening post did.

You did not do what was asked. You basically told the guy to prove it or fuck off. And here we are.

I take any role I see fit. I enjoy having options. You, however, might actually benefit from a ilttle research into the word "phillistine". I can be called many things... but regardless of what you might like to think, my presence and conduct here could not be described using that term.

You, on the other hand, seem somewhat fixed in what you are. How utterly boring that must be.
I suppose it explains the pride you take in yourself - any alternate approach toward would be rather detrimental.
I have noted that your approach has been to insult me with nearly every paragraph you've written since my arrival here. It's been like watching a blowfish puffing up in the face what it perceives to be a threat.

So. Found that article yet, Blowfish? Or are you waiting for someone who actually cares for your opinion to present it to you?

 

It used to be a common thought that the difference between human and chimpanzee genetic makeup was about 1.5%. Later research has begun to indicate it is significantly more.
Scientists have only recently begun to unravel it all.

The question is, accepting your number, which 30?

Granted, the human population has become mixed to the extent that difference between races are not nearly as defined as they were; this does not prove that those differences never existed, nor that they do not now, albeit in a diluted form.

"Better to think" demonstrates quite aptly the common approach.

 

You'd be better off tracing the female lines. No man can ever be certain without testing that his descendants are actually his own, whereas a woman who gives birth to a child can be fairly sure it's hers.

Surnames, though, can be rather fascinating in their own right.
One of the more intriguing I've run across lately has been a woman with the surname "Aegisdottir".

I still wonder how it came to be that that name became a family surname.
There is your cue, Fraggle.

 

This is the only part of your garbage that merits a response. To repeat, when you make a claim on an internet science forum the responsibility for backing up that claim rests with you, not your audience. Continue to deny this all you wish, it merely reinforces the weakness of your argument and perhaps of your character.

 

To Marquis

Re race.
it is not correct to talk of human 'races'. But it may be OK to talk of racial characteristics, although I still prefer 'population characteristics'.

Even before the current mixing of different populations genetically, it had already happened. In Africa, there were many dark skinned peoples with otherwise European characteristics, and especially in north Africa such as Egypt.

Ophiolite has been a bit rough in his language, even verging on flame insults. However, he is correct in the science he presents.

When a good scientist observes a phenomenon and wishes to come up with an explanation, he will create a hypothesis. This is not quite the same as a speculation, since it is based on existing data, rather than created from pure imagination. However, the hypothesis is regarded as worthless until tested.

To test a hypothesis, it must generate a testable prediction, which is checked by experiment or novel observation, with the intent of disproving the hypothesis if it is not correct. This is good science. If a hypothesis survives many such tests, it is elevated to the rank of a theory (which does not mean the same a that word used in everyday life.) Without empirical testing, what you have is not science, and is probably worthless.

 

What you really mean, Oph (I do enjoy the shortened form of your monicker) is that you have nothing left.

Fraggle:
It really hasn't been worth following, other than in having a bit of fun.

"Aegisdottir".

"Dottir" is Norse and means "daughter of" yes? So ignoring the Greek Aegis, I'm left with Aegir (Norse god of the sea) and a few other vague references. This aside, it is apparently a name given to a female.

I'm curious as to how a name given to a female would have ended up a surname. No doubt any speculation would be just that, but I'd be interested in your thoughts anyway.

 

Was it actually a surname?
Was she Icelandic?

Ex: Björk Guðmundsdóttir

 

Ah, thank you.
I hadn't actually considered that she might be an immigrant and that it may not be a family name at all.

Given that, I ran a quick search on facebook; all members with this name are female (A further surprise... facebook is useful for something!) and hail from Iceland. I think you've answered the question... and in the process shown my own lazy side. Heh.

Actually, I'm a little annoyed as well. I had visions of an ancient woman who was so influential that her own name became the family surname. You ruined it. Damn you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Marquis,
every one of your points can be systematically dismantled and in most cases I have already done so. You continue to fail to provide any reasonable response to the observation that those claiming research exist are responsible for providing citations for that research. This is so basic that any knowledgeable individual will laughing themselves silly are your position on this issue.

I really think you should give up while you are only behind.

 

oh really?
soo our immunesystems dont get stronger everytime we get sick? like chicken pox once you have then once you are VERY unlikey to get them again becuase your immune system evolved a tiny bit and knows how to defete it
evolution doesnt have to be major it never is actually unless you take the same species from thousands of years ago to now

 

A study of the accelerated morphing of changes made by Synapsids-to-Primates may gives clues to subtle directions that human evolution will take in the future.

 

Improvements or changes in your immune system are not biological evolution. They do not change your genetic make up. They do not alter your germ cells (ova or sperm). So, to repeat, your example is not biological evolution.

 

Of course we've evolved over the past 100 years. And I just took three steps toward Alpha Centauri. I'm getting closer.

 

That's what she said! Er, I mean, that's what I said, post 33.