Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Evolution Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Re: The Evolution Thread

    I do not believe that any kind of human evolution is going to occur in a dozen generations. The larger the human population, the larger the gene pool, and when you combine this with greater globalization, changes in the gene pool will slow to a crawl. Evolution occurs more rapidly in small isolated populations. You may see outward changes, most likely an increase in racially complex people. But this is only outward appearance in phenotype. The underlying variation in the gene pool will not change. For instance, over time we may see a lower propotion of people exhibiting the recessive blue-eye trait, but the proportion of blue-eye alleles to brown-eye alleles in the gene-pool will remain the same.

    [oops- i quoted the wrong post, so I just deleted the quote]

    Comment


      #32
      Re: The Evolution Thread

      ^^^TBH, I don't think we will have meaningful evolution as a species, without some sort of knockoff of a good deal of our population in a dozen generations either...that was pretty much just an off the cuff hypothetical example, not meant to be taken literally


      BUT, there are examples of sympatric speciation occuring in nature, so it is entirely feasible to have evolution within subpopulations.
      Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
      sigpic

      Comment


        #33
        Re: The Evolution Thread

        [quote author=thalassa link=topic=635.msg18326#msg18326 date=1291055424]
        ^^^TBH, I don't think we will have meaningful evolution as a species, without some sort of knockoff of a good deal of our population in a dozen generations either...that was pretty much just an off the cuff hypothetical example, not meant to be taken literally


        BUT, there are examples of sympatric speciation occuring in nature, so it is entirely feasible to have evolution within subpopulations.
        [/quote]

        point taken.

        but, again, a speciation event occurring under current circumstances is not too likely. Now, if there is some kind of mad-max-type collapse or post nuclear survival, this could possibly happen. But even then it is very unlikely given the human propensity to migrate and adapt (culturally) to diverse environments. Migrations have a tendency to bring populations together, reducing the chance that an isolation population will stay isolated.

        The latest evidence about neanderthals is that there was at least some inter-group fertility. This (and/or the extermination of remaining neaderthals) apparently (?) prevented a full speciation to occur

        Comment


          #34
          Re: The Evolution Thread

          [quote author=gwynwas link=topic=635.msg18328#msg18328 date=1291055865]
          a speciation event occurring under current circumstances is not too likely[/quote]

          I think this is where people get hung-up though...evolution is *not just* about speciation events...any genetic shift, even just over one generation to the next--even if it is reversed the next generation, is still evolution. Sure, the cool story of evolution takes place when speciation takes place, or over the immense geological timescale of the planet...but thats like saying being a lifeguard is just jumping in the water and saving people, when the reality is far more boring than that.

          Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
          sigpic

          Comment


            #35
            Re: The Evolution Thread

            [quote author=thalassa link=topic=635.msg18353#msg18353 date=1291058968]
            I think this is where people get hung-up though...evolution is *not just* about speciation events...any genetic shift, even just over one generation to the next--even if it is reversed the next generation, is still evolution. Sure, the cool story of evolution takes place when speciation takes place, or over the immense geological timescale of the planet...but thats like saying being a lifeguard is just jumping in the water and saving people, when the reality is far more boring than that.
            [/quote]

            Comment


              #36
              Re: The Evolution Thread

              [quote author=thalassa link=topic=635.msg18326#msg18326 date=1291055424]
              BUT, there are examples of sympatric speciation occuring in nature, so it is entirely feasible to have evolution within subpopulations.
              [/quote]

              Sorry, but I guess I quite missed your point the first time around, simply because i was not familiar with sympatic speciation (I blame it on anthropology wherein i was forced to learn a little bit about a lot of very different things). An interesting concept that, but (perhaps with my limited understanding) I fail to see where a sympatric speciation would occur in the human poplulation. The current trend seems to be going in the opposite direction, if anything.

              Comment


                #37
                Re: The Evolution Thread

                [quote author=gwynwas link=topic=635.msg18319#msg18319 date=1291054085]
                Curious. No one seems to be hooked here.

                This is a religious forum but there is no one arguing against evolution. How strange. Literalist religious types tend to have a problem with it. The seven days to create the universe and all that (liberal reinterpretions notwithstanding).
                [/quote]

                That's because not all religions are in real conflict with it

                Also, thalassa, made a very good point. This thread is in the Academics section so it's more like a discussion about the science behind evolution itself rather than a CREATION VS EVOLUTION!!!11! kind of topic where you have to take sides and form arguments against the other side, so it gets more heated.

                To me it's kinda like this (emphasis on the word kinda):

                On one hand you can have a "Out of wedlock babies, is it good or not?" topic, which is gonna generate a really heated debate.

                On the other hand you can have a topic in Academics with the title "Embryology: The science behind it" where people are just gonna casually discuss how babies are made in terms of zygotes, germ cells, multiplication and so on.

                Make sense?
                [4:82]

                Comment


                  #38
                  Re: The Evolution Thread

                  [quote author=Dumuzi link=topic=635.msg18480#msg18480 date=1291075174]
                  Make sense?
                  [/quote]

                  As you say, kinda. It depends, i think, on how literal your religious views are. I could say that homo erectus evolved from homo habilis (or whatever the current thinking is) and someone from the church i grew up in would have said, no, your interpretation of the evidence is incorrect, because God put those bones in the earth to test your faith. Particularly from a "intelligent design" perspective it is an ontological discussion and you cannot artificially separate the religious and scientific discourse, because they inevitably overlap. Now, of course, you could say that some religious outlooks are less in contradiction with current science than others.

                  My point was that, if there are fundamentalist pagans (and i know for a fact that they do exist in the world) they do not seem to be popping up here. And, i would further surmise that it has to do with the backgrounds and educated outlook of first-world pagans. Thalassa actually stated it very well, i thought. And, it is also likely that people simply don't want to feed trolls

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Re: The Evolution Thread

                    [quote author=gwynwas link=topic=635.msg18623#msg18623 date=1291130519]
                    My point was that, if there are fundamentalist pagans (and i know for a fact that they do exist in the world) they do not seem to be popping up here. And, i would further surmise that it has to do with the backgrounds and educated outlook of first-world pagans. Thalassa actually stated it very well, i thought. And, it is also likely that people simply don't want to feed trolls
                    [/quote]

                    Hehe.

                    Yeah I agree with you. I also feel this thread is less about proving or disproving evolution and more about the science behind it for those people that know a bit about it.
                    [4:82]

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Re: The Evolution Thread

                      [quote author=gwynwas link=topic=635.msg18319#msg18319 date=1291054085]
                      Curious. No one seems to be hooked here.

                      This is a religious forum but there is no one arguing against evolution. How strange. Literalist religious types tend to have a problem with it. The seven days to create the universe and all that (liberal reinterpretions notwithstanding).
                      [/quote]

                      This is not meant to be a debate or it would be in the debate section. It's meant to be an academic discussion about Evolution itself. Creationism has no place in this topic.
                      �Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. And experience is often the most valuable thing you have to offer.�
                      ― Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture
                      Sneak Attack
                      Avatar picture by the wonderful and talented TJSGrimm.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Re: The Evolution Thread

                        Speaking of evolution . . . i recently saw an interesting documentary on the co-evolution of humans and dogs. Co-evolution, is a way of looking at how domestic plant and animal species change with domestication and how humans have evolved as a result of the domestication. A textbook example is lactose intolerance. Population that have used dairy for many centuries are less likely to have this trait. Some of the genetic traits that influence alcoholism, also are possibly higher in populations that do not have a long history of grain agriculture.

                        Anyway, this dog thing, what I didn't know was that dogs are so behaviorally attuned to human's they automatically look at the right side of the human face. Humans tend to do the same thing. This is apparently because emotion is expressed slightly more on the right side of the face. No other animal does this, not even wolves. Dogs also respond to pointing and wolves raised domestically (as dogs) do not do this either.

                        Well, I thought it was interesting anyway.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Re: The Evolution Thread

                          To me, Evolution is pretty cut and dried. If you accept that life has been around for billions of years, it's inevitable. As a science major, I've heard more than my share of evidence. For instance, the fact that human chromosome #2 seems to be a combination of two different chromosomes found in apes, with he remnants of a telomere visible where they fused. We have 46 chromosomes and chimps have 48, so this accounts for the difference. In other cases, our chromosomes are said to have pretty similar patterns. Once you start arguing hard evidence like that with a fundamentalist though, they just shrug and say God made us with similar looking patterns of DNA. Well, he must have really made it a point to do so.

                          If you want to be thought intelligent, just agree with everyone.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Re: The Evolution Thread

                            [quote author=Yazichestvo link=topic=635.msg19307#msg19307 date=1291314757]
                            In other cases, our chromosomes are said to have pretty similar patterns. Once you start arguing hard evidence like that with a fundamentalist though, they just shrug and say God made us with similar looking patterns of DNA. Well, he must have really made it a point to do so.

                            [/quote]

                            And I just shrug and ask "then why'd a supposedly perfect begin make everything with so many mistakes"... :P


                            Really though, I rarely bother with Evo vs Creation debates IRL Because I just don't care what they believe or don't believe--belief is irrelevant for the subject
                            Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Re: The Evolution Thread

                              Let me ask a question, then, about evolution...

                              Let's imagine a hypothetical genetic disease. We'll call it "X."

                              If left untreated, X generally leads to the death of the person who has it by the age of 10 or so.

                              However, X can be managed with medications - not cured - that would require gene therapy which doesn't yet exist.

                              When managed, a person with X can live, with reasonably good health, well into his/her thirties.

                              In such a case, (scientific question) would treating X lead to a greater prevalence of the disease in human populations?

                              If the answer to the above question is "yes," (moral question) should X be treated or not?

                              Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Re: The Evolution Thread

                                [quote author=B. de Corbin link=topic=635.msg19337#msg19337 date=1291322820]
                                Let me ask a question, then, about evolution...

                                Let's imagine a hypothetical genetic disease. We'll call it "X."

                                If left untreated, X generally leads to the death of the person who has it by the age of 10 or so.

                                However, X can be managed with medications - not cured - that would require gene therapy which doesn't yet exist.[/quote]

                                Well...hypothetically, if gene therapy (from what I understand of it...and considering the mush my brain is in ATM from my term paper marathon, I don't feel like bothering to double check) is ever perfected, it *will* be a cure, because it will change the person at the genetic level, which...hypothetically would mean that it would change their gametes as well, and wouldn't be passed on to their children.

                                For example...real genetic disease, Cystic Fibrosis...shows up when two persons carrying a copy of the recessive trait have offspring that inherit both recessive copies of the gene (realistically, it more complicated than that, but we will go with the simplified version for everyone's sanity) Without treatment, CF patients usually die young, prior to having off spring and most (maybe all ?) males afflicted are actually sterile.

                                When managed, a person with X can live, with reasonably good health, well into his/her thirties.

                                In such a case, (scientific question) would treating X lead to a greater prevalence of the disease in human populations?
                                But...theoretically, yes. A disease that can be treated and is inheritable can increase in prevalence in human populations...or it can "drop out" of the population as well.

                                There are actually statistical curves that visually explain how traits increase, stabilize or decline in populations in the face of different pressures and processes (I don't think most people realize how much of ecology and evolution is actually math)...but basically, a trait that is neither selected for or against is at the whim of stochasticity (chance) and has as much a possibility of remaining in the population as dropping out for a whole host of reasons mainly having to do with the genetics side of evolution.

                                If the answer to the above question is "yes," (moral question) should X be treated or not?
                                Really, thats an entirely different discussion ...one that *can't* be answered by science...

                                Although, if the condition is manageable...why would it matter if it occurs in an increased prevalence?
                                Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X