Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 9 10
#7950 07/20/06 10:22 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacknad:
So what's the selective pressure? Who's eating short people?

This is more about diet and better sports science.

Blacknad
competition. stereo types. hiring practices. in other words we are. society rewards the people that are faster, taller, smarter, or in some other form, better than the average. this means they get better rewards, meaning better lives and the shorter, dumber slower people end up with less. its causing more of a stratifying social order than most people realise. you'd be surprised at how many of them don't have children or die young due to depression, drugs, suicide, etc. because they don't fit the idea society has said they need to be. i read somewhere (don't ask for references, I've slept since then and it was not that interesting) that the average person to die from drug over does is under 5'5". the average age for gang related deaths is something like 15 and their average IQ is below 100. that is not to say they all are. just the average is below societies norm. this is a form of selective breading. unintended, but still selecive. the faster, richer, more successful male reaches and attracts the best females. the best looking, most successfull female attracts the most males, thus having the best selection. the best looking most successfull looking worker gets the best jobs, while the ones that are slower, and less successfull seeming, succeed less often. we are driving our own evolution to be even faster than normal.
There is a mish-mash of ideas here. The fact is that in the developed world, successful people sire less progeny than do the lower social orders. Career people put off having children and are far more likely to have a single child.

The number of American women who have only one child has doubled over the last two decades

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/story?id=2178396&page=1

Quote:
"Twenty percent of the family population is one child," Newman said. "In the major metropolitan cities, like New York and Los Angeles, that number is 30 percent. People are having children later, which leaves less time for having the second child. Housing is expensive. The divorce rate hovers at 50 percent. Often both parents are working, and child care is a factor."
In the UK, professional people seem to mostly have single children. Anecdotally - at my daughter's nursery almost all of the children have zero siblings. If you want to see who is breeding, then you have to look to those on welfare. Look at council estates where girls start having children at 14 - 16 and just carry on. Some neighbours of my parents are long term claimants of sickness benefit. They have eight children and are expecting another. People who don't work are the only ones who can afford children. At $1189 per month for my three year old's nursery fees I am in no hurry to have another.

So if, as you say, the beautiful people are getting hired, they will probably be the ones contributing less to the gene pool.

Society does not reward the faster, taller or smarter. They are the ones that will pay through their noses to bring their children up (if they do have any at all), whilst those who cannot or will not work can pop them out one after another and the state will pick up the tab.

It's something, but it's certainly not survival of the fittest.

Blacknad.
so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family. at least in america. just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them. just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids. it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters. it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
.
#7951 07/20/06 10:47 PM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7
K
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
K
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:
"... finding new ways.Change is what evolution is all about,isn't it?"

Evolution is about change in genetic populations, not physical changes in individuals.

"And I don't think great athletes become great because of gatorade or their so called improved training."
I think you underestimate the importance of diet and training. It's not just that athletes train hard. Athletes have always trained hard. It's that they are training scientifically. We actually know a lot more about how to exercise now. Specific exercise programs can target specific muscles that are used for strength or for fine motor control.

I used to think that Personal Trainers were a waste of money. That was till I actually tried one. I got a membership at the county rec center and got to meet with a trainer for free. It was amazing the experience and insight I was getting from this guy. I'm now a big believer in PTs. (Unfortunately, not all of them are equally good.)

"But my point is training and diet I think has limits. And new world records in athletics are constantly being made."

It's a good point. Training and diet *do* have limits, but our understanding of these has improved dramatically over the last 50 years - and it looks like it will continue to improve for another decade or so. I doubt we have yet seen the limits that diet and training can produce.
So speed skaters,sprinters,high jumpers,etc became so good through that new bo flex machine or some kind of super science potion?What is the difference if they bench press a tree log or use one of those new exercise machines?Our ancesters may have trained even harder than people today.And on some level great athletes are born with these gifts.And if it is because of sports science and training,to me that is some what evolution it self.As I said before,people get smarter and smarter.Our ancestors may have even seen us as "God like" with the things we can do today.In my opinion any kind of change is a part of evolution,even if it is through science.

#7952 07/20/06 11:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Quote:
Originally posted by dehammer: [/qb]
so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family. at least in america. just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them. just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids. it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters. it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

Hi Dehammer.

so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family.

Where did you get this figure? The Population Resource Centre says...

"Non-Hispanic whites have the lowest fertility rate of 1.8, about 14 percent below the "replacement rate" of 2.1."

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html

Are you saying that even though it is so low, successful families are managing 2.5, because as a whole you are managing only 2.1 which is just at the replacement rate? This is bucking a trend in developed nations due to your very high rate of teenage pregnancies (teenagers who become pregnant are much more likely to come from poor families) and your high religious population...

"There are several explanations for this. Much higher fertility among immigrant populations accounts for a large part of the difference. America's religious makeup limits participation in modern sex education and abortion and encourages a family-centered lifestyle. Statistically almost all of the difference between the United States and Europe can be explained by the US's higher rate of teenage pregnancy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them.

The whole point is that because they leave it so late they often don't have time for a second. Hence the sentence in the ABC News article...

- "People are having children later, which leaves less time for having the second child."

(Meaning they are less likely to have another child).

just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids.

Where do these figures come from? Are you sure this balances out? I am saying that educated career people are having less children (by far) than the uneducated. It is very easy to see in Britain - I wouldn't expect it to be so different in America.

it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters.

Yes - and the average fertility amongst career people is lower than that from poorer families.

it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

You make it sound as if you live in Calcutta. The simple fact is that smart people are having less children than other people. They are a diminishing population. As a whole Western Civilisation is probably regressing as opposed to evolving.

Blacknad.

#7953 07/21/06 12:59 AM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
are you saying that only non hispanic whites are successful.

the reality is that there is a lot of successful non whites and hispanic whites that are successful and the are from a part of society that still pushes large families.

Quote:
You make it sound as if you live in Calcutta. The simple fact is that smart people are having less children than other people. They are a diminishing population. As a whole Western Civilisation is probably regressing as opposed to evolving.
you dont have to live in calcutta to see that, all you have to do is live in or near the poor part of any large city any where in the world. every been to the south side of inner Houston Texas. I have. maybe not as bad as calcutta, but there are children that live on the street that will be very lucky if they live long enough to vote. most people dont want to see the runaways, the drug addicts, the 12 year old street walkers. they are there. most people dont every see them. many have been kicked out of homes because their parents could not take care of them or choise to drink instead of feeding another helpless mouth. or perhaps the money for their childrens cloths went to the drug dealer instead. these children are from families too poor to get any attension from the politicians and the bleeding hearts only show up every once in a while. just long enough to make themselves feel good. the people that are there to help are streached too thinly and dont have the resourses to really help everyone. so its a real victory when they can help anyone. the fact is that most of the kids are too scared to get help or too hooked on drugs their pimps got them hooked on too get the help that is available.
from what ive heard Houston does not have near the problem that other cities have.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#7954 07/21/06 12:20 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
KK wrote "to me that is some what evolution it self"

Words have many meanings. There is the popular usage and understanding of a word. There is the meaning of a word in a particular community. There is what the word means to individuals.

Your personal understanding of evolution corresponds to the popular notion of the word. When I talk about it, I'm talking about biological evolution.

In lay terms, what you have mentioned is certainly evolution. But in scientific terms, I don't think there's any reason to think that biological evolution accounts for any of it.

#7955 07/21/06 06:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Different words than I'd have used Falliable but a very accurate expression of reality. I don't know what dehammer is thinking when commenting on science.


DA Morgan
#7956 07/21/06 07:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
did that have anything to do with the topic or just something nonsensical to get your name on the topic. i didnt see anything. topic is evolution. got an opinion on it, post it. otherwise dont bother wasting space.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#7957 07/21/06 07:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
I was complimenting IFF for well chosen words.


DA Morgan
#7958 07/21/06 07:24 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
BTW dehammer. You might want to run your tag line through a spell checker.


DA Morgan
#7959 07/21/06 08:59 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
I don't know what dehammer is thinking when commenting on science. Especially given the claim of being an adult with a college education.
what does that have to do with complementing IFF for anything?


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#7960 07/21/06 09:01 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
BTW dehammer. You might want to run your tag line through a spell checker.
and you might want to look up the word to see if there are multiple spellings. weve already been though this. guess you were off line those days.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#7961 07/22/06 09:30 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
dehammer,
did you understand what I wrote about definitions?

#7962 07/22/06 10:23 AM
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 22
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 22
Fallible,
I sincerely hope this isn't one of the issues that torque you off, but I would love to hear your opinion/theory. How could altruism have evolved? The only thing I can think of that fits with the natural selection mechanism, is that it arose out of the nature to protect one's offspring. But it still seems to me that putting yourself at risk to protect someone else would quickly be dissolved in the evolutionary train ride.

#7963 07/22/06 02:50 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,089
yes, i did. i did not have any trouble with that, only with the fact that da does little more than attack everything. only on rare occasions does he add something to the discussion. actually i agree with what you said about definitions too.


the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.
#7964 07/22/06 07:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
DrBarr asks:
"How could altruism have evolved?"

Altruism, at its root is self serving. Those species that engage in altruistic behaviour are more successful.

Keep in mind that our history is tribal. All of the members of the tribe were very closely related genetically and thus helping a member of the tribe helped the survival of the tribe's DNA. Consider this in light of the willingness to commit genocide when dealing with members of another tribe. A male lion protects its own offspring and willingly murders the offspring of another male not part of the pride.

Our species success relates directly to how individuals define the breathe and scope of the tribe. Some think the tribe is literally their tribe. Others think it is their nation and yet others their religion and yet others those of their culture or skin color.

Some of us consider our tribe to be every person on the planet and are horrified by their behaviour toward other members of "the tribe."


DA Morgan
#7965 07/23/06 03:37 AM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally posted by DrBarr:
Fallible,
I sincerely hope this isn't one of the issues that torque you off, but I would love to hear your opinion/theory. How could altruism have evolved? The only thing I can think of that fits with the natural selection mechanism, is that it arose out of the nature to protect one's offspring. But it still seems to me that putting yourself at risk to protect someone else would quickly be dissolved in the evolutionary train ride.
Drbarr,

This is not something that torques me off. You asked a question - a real question and you said you didn't understand how this could be.

There has been a lot of research done into this very area with social insects, especially regarding bees, for example.

Evolution does not work at the level of the individual . It works at the level of the population. If some members of a group put themselves at risk for the tribe, they are increasing the chances of success for the group - and also for the chance of passing on SOME of their own genes, those which they share with their siblings and other close relatives.

#7966 07/24/06 03:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 414
Dr Barr:

There's a thread here called "Evolution of Altruism" which was a short discussion of this news release:

http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/05-08/lizards.asp


When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
--S. Lewis
#7967 07/24/06 11:56 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
This same article was posted here some time back. I'm sure the thread is still available.

Amaranth

#7968 08/04/06 10:02 AM
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally posted by TheFallibleFiend:


Evolution does not work at the level of the individual . It works at the level of the population. If some members of a group put themselves at risk for the tribe, they are increasing the chances of success for the group - and also for the chance of passing on SOME of their own genes, those which they share with their siblings and other close relatives. [/QB]
Natural selection does work at the level of the individual. Altruism, or apparent altruism can only evolve if the gene or genes which produce the altruistic behaviour are favoured over genes which don't produce the behaviour. Individuals which have the genes would produce more surviving offspring and the gene would increase in frequency in the population.

#7969 08/04/06 03:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
RE: dougalbod ... exactly!

If you are the saber toothed kitty cats breakfast your genetic complement ends there.

If your genes lead to behaviours that protect you, either personally or through the tribal dynamic, your DNA gets another shot.


DA Morgan
Page 3 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 9 10

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5