Evolution Question(s) (page 5)

greven

LMAO@rem

Also, studies revealed that the more educated you get, the later you reproduce. Higher educated people also tend to produce less offspring. So evolutionary speaking the less educated are more successful.

Greven

Abaddon

greven:

Also, studies revealed that the more educated you get, the later you reproduce. Higher educated people also tend to produce less offspring. So evolutionary speaking the less educated are more successful.

Ah, but that would give selection pressure in the population of educated people in favour of those whose genetics favoured untroubled fertility in later life, especially with females who obviously have a menopause to consider. This untroubled late fertility would tend to also select for people who aged well and remanind healthy, who in turn would probably live longer than average.

Over time, this could well mean that late-breeding alone could mean educated familes with consistantly high education over the generations would develop longer lifespans.

peacefulpete

sorry about that Leolaia..in fact I think we exchanged in the past. But none the less thanks.

greven

Over time, this could well mean that late-breeding alone could mean educated familes with consistantly high education over the generations would develop longer lifespans.

That's very well possible Abaddon!

Predicting how a species will develop in time is virtually impossible. Not only are all the relevant selection pressures hard to identify and changing in time, there are also a zillion possible ways that a species can adept (or not adept) to such pressures. Predicting the course humanity will take is even harder as we have also culture and society issues to trow into the equasion (sp?).

Some very thought provoking posts in this thread people!

Greven

Faraon

Abaddon,

Falling between the YEC and OEC (Young & Old Earth Creationist) stools (appropriate word) they allow creative days to be any length what-so-ever, having revised their day=1,000 years tack in the '80's with the Creation book, that misbegotten pale blue travesty that probably lead to me spending another nine years in a cult as it revised the one thing that even with my miniscule knowledge of the subject at the time I knew was in dire conflict with the evidence.

And that brings them into still more hot water like...

Since plants were created the day before the sun, does it mean that they spent 1000 years without the ability to produce photosyntesis, and grow?

Did they have to wait yet another 1000 years to be pollinated?

asleif_dufansdottir

Leolaia: Right on...how cool that you learned that from the tv! So many undergrad anthro students don't learn it from attending classes!!

Sickle cell is the classic example given in physical anthro classes of balanced polymorphism (that's the technical term if you'd like to look up more info). The Vitamin D Hypothesis isn't as well covered but I thought it was interesting.

All this discussion is making me remember the good old days in my undergrad Physical Anthropology class!

asleif_dufansdottir

Predicting how a species will develop in time is virtually impossible. Not only are all the relevant selection pressures hard to identify and changing in time, there are also a zillion possible ways that a species can adept (or not adept) to such pressures. Predicting the course humanity will take is even harder as we have also culture and society issues to trow into the equasion (sp?).

Also, as I was just reminded the other day by a classmate who is a paleoarchaeologist...traits don't have to be optimal to be selected for by evolution...they just have to be good enough. Even maladaptive traits might be selected for as long as they are less maladaptive than other traits.

Edited to add: Also, it bears mentioning that evolution doesn't care (allow me to reify the concept of evolution here) if you die of some crippling disease after you reproduce...in general, reproducing is the only thing that matters in evolution...so if you carry some sort of genetic trait that cripples and kills you at a reletively young age, as long as you reproduce first and your young survive (ie-your being crippled or killed didn't adversely affect their chance of survival) that's all that matters, that genetic trait won't necessarily be weeded out by evolution.

LucidSky

drwtsn32: "We rely now on technology and culture for survival now and those are rapidly evolving. This could lead to more feeble humans: strength etc becomes irrelevant when we have machines to do it for us. We have taken a brand new road in the history of life..."

Interesting. As biology breaks down, we replace it with technology. Look at all the prostheses we are now adding to ourselves. How much longer until they starts working better than our biology - physically and even mentally?

Will humanity will morph into some kind of "cybernetic organism"? I think we've already started down that path...

LucidSky

Faraon

Talking about TV. I was seeing a program about how microorganisms combine with one another and fight off previous inmunity.

In another program I saw, Scientists found an area in Africa where some of the people are inmune to HIV.

In yet another I saw that one of the most important characteristics in subconsciously seeking a mate is facial and body symmetry.

Fascinating things one finds in the Science, Discovery, and National Geographic channels.

Asleif,

Leolaia: Right on...how cool that you learned that from the tv! So many undergrad anthro students don't learn it from attending classes!!

I wonder why. I learned about the genetical reasons why sickle cell anemia survives back in 1971 in my Biology 201 course. I would even use it to challenge a Political Science 151. He was a racist who believed in the "purity" of the races and that blacks were intellectually inferior to caucasian.

I am, as far as I know, 100% Caucasian, but my children are more fortunate because they are also a mixture of Black and American Indian. There are about eight lethal genes present in humans. They don't express themselves and kill the individual because they are not present in both parents.

drwtsn32:

"We rely now on technology and culture for survival now and those are rapidly evolving. This could lead to more feeble humans: strength etc becomes irrelevant when we have machines to do it for us. We have taken a brand new road in the history of life..."

I seriously doubt it. There is a very large gene pool. Most of the people using these machines are using them due to circumstances after they were born, such as accidents or illnesses, which have no genetic carryover to the next generation. Anyway, the survivers may carry other genes that would add other desirable characteristics to the pool.

asleif_dufansdottir

Asleif,

Leolaia: Right on...how cool that you learned that from the tv! So many undergrad anthro students don't learn it from attending classes!!

I wonder why

Faraon: Oops, sorry. I'm a TA in a Intro to Cultural Anth class (150 students in the class) at a large university with a reputation as a party school...That was just my smartaleck commentary on students who are sleeping or talking or playing computer games or otherwise totally uninvolved during a lecture , only to whine at the end of the semester when they wake up and realize they're failing ...just ignore me I'll get over it after their stuff is all graded and I don't have to deal with it anymore...

Evolution Question(s)

Share this