| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stoney" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2007 10:11:40 AM |
| Object: |
Is human evolution speeding up? |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 5:05 p.m. ET Dec. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - {AP} Science-fiction writers have suggested a future
Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In
real life, the reverse seems to be happening.
People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with
residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from
one another, researchers say.
“I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to
50,000 years ago and haven’t changed,” explained Henry C. Harpending,
an anthropologist at the University of Utah.“The opposite seems to be
true.”
“Our species is not static,” Harpending added in a telephone
interview.
That doesn’t mean we should expect major changes in a few generations,
though. Evolution on that scale occurs over thousands, even millions
of years.
Harpending and colleagues looked at the DNA of humans and that of
chimpanzees, our closest relatives, they report in this week’s online
edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since
humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago, there should be 160
times more differences than the researchers found.
That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant
past, Harpending explained.
“Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in
cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation,” the
study says. “The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental
evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new
genetic responses to diet and disease.”
And they found that different changes are occurring in Africans,
Asians and Europeans.
Signs of acceleration
Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and
then spread to other areas, and the lighter skin color of Europeans
and Asians is generally attributed to selection to allow more
absorption of vitamin D in colder climate where there is less sun.
The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last
10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because “we were in new
environments to which we needed to adapt,” Harpending adds. “And with
a larger population, more mutations occurred.”
In another example, the researchers noted that in China and most of
Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden
and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase
remains active, so almost everyone can drink fresh milk, explaining
why dairy farming is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean
and Africa, Harpending says.
The researchers studied 3.9 million gene snippets from 270 people in
four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe and
Utah Mormons who traced their ancestry to northern Europe. The samples
were collected through the International HapMap Consortium.
Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the
Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, said he
thinks the researchers reasoning regarding rapid adaptive change is
plausible.
The study mainly points to an overall expansion in the human
population over the past 40,000 years to explain the genetic data.
“Yet the archaeological record also shows that humans increasingly
divided themselves into distinct cultures and migrating groups —
factors that seem to play only a small role in their analysis.
Dividing the human population into finer units and their movement into
new regions — the Arctic, Oceania, tropical forests, just to name some
— may have also forced quicker adaptive evolution in our species,”
Potts said.
Potts, who was not part of the research team, added that he liked the
report “because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a
variety of ideas about recent human adaptation.”
Intelligence and natural selection?
Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a
study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews —
those of northern European heritage — resulted from natural selection
in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers,
traders, managers and tax collectors.
Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families
to pass on their genes, they suggested. That evolution also is linked
to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.
The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National
Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz
Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin.
.
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 10:20:48 AM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 11:11 am, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
One of the things we keep hearing becoming more prevalent is couples
that need medical assistance in order to conceive. I wonder if it has
ever occurred to people that one of the reasons more people are having
problems conceiving is because increased speciation is happening among
the human population. Humans are becoming so different from one
another genetically, particularly in areas where the population comes
from a very wide base, that in some cases we are no longer cross-
fertile. Of course it is certainly possible that other factors are as
prevalent or more prevalent to the issue, such as fertility rates
going down where populations are high and infant mortality is low.
Not based on any scientific data...just a thought. Perhaps this
question is indeed worth some study so that we can learn what is truly
happening.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 11:28:37 AM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 11:20 am, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:11 am, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
One of the things we keep hearing becoming more prevalent is couples
that need medical assistance in order to conceive. I wonder if it has
ever occurred to people that one of the reasons more people are having
problems conceiving is because increased speciation is happening among
the human population.
Uh... No, it hasn't. There is only one specie of human beings, homo
sapiens. Has it occurred to you that until very recently there was
nothing that could be done about infertility? The reason you hear
more about it now is (1) we can do in vitro fertilization and all
sorts of other nifty medical procedures to produce children, (2) there
are more people now than ever before, (3) the media gives us broad
access to stories about techniques of fertilization, so we hear more
about infertility, and (4) cheap, easy and effective means of birth
control have allowed a lot of women to put off having babies in their
most fertile years then opt for elderly pregnancies in their late 40s
or 50s.
If anything, with international travel and taboos against
"interracial" marriage dissolving, the human animal is becoming more
and more homogenized.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 01:06:33 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:20:48 -0800 (PST), Lord Calvert <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com>
wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:11 am, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
One of the things we keep hearing becoming more prevalent is couples
that need medical assistance in order to conceive. I wonder if it has
ever occurred to people that one of the reasons more people are having
problems conceiving is because increased speciation is happening among
the human population. Humans are becoming so different from one
another genetically, particularly in areas where the population comes
from a very wide base, that in some cases we are no longer cross-
fertile. Of course it is certainly possible that other factors are as
prevalent or more prevalent to the issue, such as fertility rates
going down where populations are high and infant mortality is low.
Not based on any scientific data...just a thought. Perhaps this
question is indeed worth some study so that we can learn what is truly
happening.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
I doubt it. Here are some of the issues.
1. The longer a couple waits to have children, the more difficult it is to
conceive.
2. The technology is relatively new and was not readily available too long ago..
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 12:55:17 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:20:48 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , Lord
Calvert <CalvertdeGrey@msn.com> in
<717bc621-221b-44f7-86d7-cb0f8f72d341@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:11 am, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
One of the things we keep hearing becoming more prevalent is couples
that need medical assistance in order to conceive. I wonder if it has
ever occurred to people that one of the reasons more people are having
problems conceiving is because increased speciation is happening among
the human population.
What is "increased speciation" in a given species? That makes no
sense.
Humans are becoming so different from one
another genetically, particularly in areas where the population comes
from a very wide base, that in some cases we are no longer cross-
fertile.
Do you have any evidence that the increased infertility, assuming
there is an increase, has to do with people from different sub-groups
trying to conceive? That is, do you know, for example, that is harder
for Chinese/American mixed couples to conceive than for
European/European couples?
Of course it is certainly possible that other factors are as
prevalent or more prevalent to the issue, such as fertility rates
going down where populations are high and infant mortality is low.
Or that we have better technology to deal with infertility so it is
more noticeable.
Not based on any scientific data...just a thought. Perhaps this
question is indeed worth some study so that we can learn what is truly
happening.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 01:15:30 PM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 1:55 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:20:48 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , Lord
Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> in
<717bc621-221b-44f7-86d7-cb0f8f72d...@q3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
On Dec 11, 11:11 am, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
One of the things we keep hearing becoming more prevalent is couples
that need medical assistance in order to conceive. I wonder if it has
ever occurred to people that one of the reasons more people are having
problems conceiving is because increased speciation is happening among
the human population.
What is "increased speciation" in a given species? That makes no
sense.
I apologize if I expressed my intention poorly. What I mean is that we
may be seeing the process as to how one species separates into two or
more species in ourselves. That someday in the future, *we* will be
the common ancestor of a variety of different species as sub-groups
adapt to their environment in different ways and that the inability of
those sub-groups to be cross-fertile may be an indicator that home
sapiens is evolving into a variety of different species.
Humans are becoming so different from one
another genetically, particularly in areas where the population comes
from a very wide base, that in some cases we are no longer cross-
fertile.
Do you have any evidence that the increased infertility, assuming
there is an increase, has to do with people from different sub-groups
trying to conceive? That is, do you know, for example, that is harder
for Chinese/American mixed couples to conceive than for
European/European couples?
No I don't. I think it is worth finding out. I don't think that what
we consider as "race" to be a significant factor because those
characteristics are essentially trivial and superficial. "Race" is
pretty much appearance only, not substance and we have always tended
to devote far more importance to mere physical appearance than it has
ever merited. I think the more important factors are the inheritance
of particular genetic patterns, patterns which would cause a
fertilized ovum not to develop. That's what speciation is.
Of course it is certainly possible that other factors are as
prevalent or more prevalent to the issue, such as fertility rates
going down where populations are high and infant mortality is low.
Or that we have better technology to deal with infertility so it is
more noticeable.
That is certainly true. Perhaps studying what happens to children who
were conceived with additional technological aids and what happens
when *they* have children will shed some light on the long term
effects of such programs.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Cruel and Unusual Choreography
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 01:08:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:55:17 -0500, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Do you have any evidence that the increased infertility, assuming
there is an increase, has to do with people from different sub-groups
One thing about using technology to allow the otherwise infertile to have
children is that you're allowing defective genes to get passed along.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 03:39:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 06:50:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 07:51:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
12 Dec 2007 09:52:31 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
12 Dec 2007 03:32:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
13 Dec 2007 12:09:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology? Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
13 Dec 2007 03:57:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
13 Dec 2007 09:28:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down? If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim. If not, never mind.
Thanks.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
13 Dec 2007 05:50:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
14 Dec 2007 05:04:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:23 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
I wouldn't consider that to be evolution slowing down. Eyeglasses are
just an environmental condition that provides new evolutionary
avenues. Evolution then proceeds from this condition at whatever pace
this new environment allows. The genes of spectacled humans are now
given sway in the population. By thusly increasing the viability of
humans in the environment through this artificial adaptation, one
might equally as well consider that evolution is sped up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
14 Dec 2007 01:37:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:04:51 GMT,
(William Wingstedt) wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:23 +1030, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
I wouldn't consider that to be evolution slowing down. Eyeglasses are
just an environmental condition that provides new evolutionary
avenues. Evolution then proceeds from this condition at whatever pace
this new environment allows. The genes of spectacled humans are now
given sway in the population. By thusly increasing the viability of
humans in the environment through this artificial adaptation, one
might equally as well consider that evolution is sped up.
Then it is encumbent on you to define what you actually mean by
"Evolution".
Your above precis implies that random genetic drift would fit into
your definition, but it certainly does not fit into mine.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
14 Dec 2007 11:16:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:23 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
I have two ways I would like to address this.
Way one, which I choose first because it is the most pertinent to the issue.
As someone else pointed out, evolution is the change in the population's
alleles. So, assuming that you are absolutely correct that eye glasses have
allowed for the spread of the gene for poor eye vision and the population has
shifted to a much higher frequency of bad vision, this is not a slowing down of
evolution, to the contrary, it caused a very rapid change to occur in a few
hundred years; thus, a speed up.
"...Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything
from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population
(such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led
from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 ..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Way two, which deals with other assumptions.
Do you have evidence that the population did not have a significant amount of
myopia prior to the popularity of glasses? Is myopia a major hindrance to
net/line fishing, picking berries or doing farming; and especially while
living in an extended family unit or community?
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
14 Dec 2007 11:56:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:16:37 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:23 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
I have two ways I would like to address this.
Way one, which I choose first because it is the most pertinent to the issue.
As someone else pointed out, evolution is the change in the population's
alleles.
That is not a definition that ia accepted by any evolutionary
biologist that I know of, for the definition includes random drift
that has no effect on phentypes, and that is not normally considered
"evolution", merely "change" in the genome.
So, assuming that you are absolutely correct that eye glasses have
allowed for the spread of the gene for poor eye vision and the population has
shifted to a much higher frequency of bad vision, this is not a slowing down of
evolution, to the contrary, it caused a very rapid change to occur in a few
hundred years; thus, a speed up.
I fail to see how retention of a gene is "speeding up" evolution.
I can see what you are driving at, but son't agree that you have made
a case, possibly as you are not employing the same definition of
evolution as I.
"...Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything
from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population
(such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led
from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 ..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
I feel that this is a truncated definition, and yet still *implies*
that the allelle frequency has an effect on the phenoype, but does not
explicitly state it in that paragraph.
I would be surprised if Futayama considered mutations in "junk" DNA to
be "evolution", but on face value given a cursory reading of the above
quotation, that is what he is literally saying.
If that is the case, I take issue with his definition.
Do you consider non-functional mutations in junk DNA that never get
expressed to be "evolution"?
If you don't, then your supplied defintion is faulty.
If you do, then we are destined to never agree.
Way two, which deals with other assumptions.
Do you have evidence that the population did not have a significant amount of
myopia prior to the popularity of glasses?
Not at hand, but I have read it in scientific journals, and were it
worth my while, I could provide references.
Is myopia a major hindrance to
net/line fishing, picking berries or doing farming; and especially while
living in an extended family unit or community?
Even moderate myopia would be an evolutionary impediment if one is up
against rivals with perfect vision.
It is just a mater of gradation as to how quickly the pressure would
take to evolve out.
(Unless disturbed by a strange kind of sexual selection reverse
pressure).
If not, try living in the bush for a fortnight with coke bottles in
front of your eyes.
That should answer your question! ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
15 Dec 2007 03:44:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:26:42 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:16:37 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:20:23 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:28:29 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 20:27:44 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:09:30 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 08:02:12 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:52:31 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:21:39 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:50:07 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:09:08 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
No, it is slowing down.
Due to medical interventions, even minor ones such as eye-glasses,
dentures, shoes, etc.
But perhaps those with poor vision, for example, tend to be smarter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid_3916000/3916325.stm
so thanks to glasses there may be a greater frequency of "smart people" genes
in the population.
You are:
0) Assuming that the statistics are representaive of a global effect.
1) Assuming a causal correlation.
2) Assuming that the putative cause is unidirectional
3) Assuming the putative cause is in the directional of
"specatcles=>extra smarts"
None of these assumptions are warranted.
Even if the correlation is statistically significant, it could be for
a common third correlative agent, such as: in poor countries,
wealthier parents can afford spectacles for their children, and can
also afford superior education.
The two need not bear any causal relation whatever for there to be a
correlation.
I was not making a claim, I said "perhaps" to explore the assumptiveness of
your claim. And since you've gone to the trouble of writing out a list of
assumptions will you reconsider that you have indulged in some of them, with the
additional assumption of believing all causes are known?
I did not make that assumption, and I do not believe that all "causes"
are known, nor indeed, if there are any causal factors at all.
I covered this in point 1)
I listed all of the logical categories that apply, not all of the
potential causes.
Are you able to think of another logical causation correlation
category to add to my list?
If you do not believe that all causes are known then how do you claim that
evolution is slowing down due to the technology?
One does not need to know all the causes of a phenomenon to claim the
reality of said phenomenon.
Indeed, one need not know *any* of the causes in order to report the
stats.
Just to be clear I am not
making any claim abut it's rate.
That is another subject again...
Wait a second here, perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you claiming that
evolution in humans has slowed down?
Yes.
As a working hypothesis.
If yes, what is the evidence for this
claim.
I'm spoiled for choice here.
As an example, consider the booming incidence of short-sightedness
amongst east asians.
This would have been weeded out in the past, save for eyeglasses.
That is the kind of slowing down of evolution to which I refer.
I have two ways I would like to address this.
Way one, which I choose first because it is the most pertinent to the issue.
As someone else pointed out, evolution is the change in the population's
alleles.
That is not a definition that ia accepted by any evolutionary
biologist that I know of, for the definition includes random drift
that has no effect on phentypes, and that is not normally considered
"evolution", merely "change" in the genome.
I beg to differ. When the frequency of alleles in the population are changed by
something new in the environment - glasses - this is not random drift, it is a
response to the change.
As for what evolutionary biologists say, please see the below cite from my last
message.
So, assuming that you are absolutely correct that eye glasses have
allowed for the spread of the gene for poor eye vision and the population has
shifted to a much higher frequency of bad vision, this is not a slowing down of
evolution, to the contrary, it caused a very rapid change to occur in a few
hundred years; thus, a speed up.
I fail to see how retention of a gene is "speeding up" evolution.
I can see what you are driving at, but son't agree that you have made
a case, possibly as you are not employing the same definition of
evolution as I.
"...Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything
from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population
(such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led
from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 ..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
I feel that this is a truncated definition, and yet still *implies*
that the allelle frequency has an effect on the phenoype, but does not
explicitly state it in that paragraph.
I would be surprised if Futayama considered mutations in "junk" DNA to
be "evolution", but on face value given a cursory reading of the above
quotation, that is what he is literally saying.
If that is the case, I take issue with his definition.
Do you consider non-functional mutations in junk DNA that never get
expressed to be "evolution"?
If you don't, then your supplied defintion is faulty.
If you do, then we are destined to never agree.
This is not junk DNA we are talking about. Clearly, these are the alleles that
affect vision. When the allele distribution changes so does the phenotype. How
can you say that there is no affect on the phenotype?
Consider blind cave fish. When they first went into darkness they all had eyes
but they became sightless over the ages. Keen eyesight might be beneficial to
a fish out in open waters but eyesight is not a factor for survival in an
environment without light. Don't you regard the degeneration of their eyes as
evolution?
To help me see your side, why not cite an evolutionary biologist's definition of
evolution that you are more comfortable with?
Way two, which deals with other assumptions.
Do you have evidence that the population did not have a significant amount of
myopia prior to the popularity of glasses?
Not at hand, but I have read it in scientific journals, and were it
worth my while, I could provide references.
Is myopia a major hindrance to
net/line fishing, picking berries or doing farming; and especially while
living in an extended family unit or community?
Even moderate myopia would be an evolutionary impediment if one is up
against rivals with perfect vision.
But that is an assumption not a given. For example, there is a big difference
between being a member of a nomadic warrior tribe and one of a farming/fishing
village.
It is just a mater of gradation as to how quickly the pressure would
take to evolve out.
(Unless disturbed by a strange kind of sexual selection reverse
pressure).
If not, try living in the bush for a fortnight with coke bottles in
front of your eyes.
That should answer your question! ;)
Then maybe that's why there was not a great proliferation of poor vision in bush
people after glasses came about.
Ben
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
15 Dec 2007 04:55:32 PM |
|
|
A quick response:
I suspect that you may be substantially correct, and I somewhat
incorrect, but I'll have to give it some thought, as I have an inkling
that I am on to something here, but find myself unable to articulate
the concept.
Thanks for a stimulating discussion anyway.
After I have clarified my thoughts on the matter, I may "get back" to
you. :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 10:45:57 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 5:05 p.m. ET Dec. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - {AP} Science-fiction writers have suggested a future
Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In
real life, the reverse seems to be happening.
Blending has nothing to do with evolution.
People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with
residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from
one another, researchers say.
Hardly. Easy travel is making everywhere the same and it still has
nothing to do with evolution.
<rest based on faulty premise snipped>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gail Futoran" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 11:44:51 AM |
|
|
"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message
news:slrnfltfm4.cms.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net...
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
[snips]
I'm not sure I agree with the original premise -
I don't have the background, for one thing.
But I'm not sure I can agree with you
(AZ Nomad), either.
We change the environment in ignorance,
mostly, hence the current debate about
climate change and our role in it. Other
environmental changes we're caused
include the dumping of medicines into
watersheds affecting not only the life therein
but also us because we consume that
life (and the water). The over-use and
incorrect use of antibiotics is another
example of how we ignorantly change
our environment. Examples abound.
Any and all of that can and presumably
does affect us as organisms - individuals
and as a species - interacting with the
environment, whether wholly "natural"
or at least part "manmade".
If the original premise has some truth to
it, given what we are now learning about
our impact on our environment, and
the converse, I think there's something there
to consider. It's an empirical question,
after all, isn't it? One to explore rather
than discard unexamined.
Gail
aa#2247
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 11:10:35 AM |
|
|
On Dec 11, 11:45 am, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <sto...@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 5:05 p.m. ET Dec. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - {AP} Science-fiction writers have suggested a future
Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In
real life, the reverse seems to be happening.
Blending has nothing to do with evolution.
Yeah, other than for a breif period of a thousand or so years, coming
from herterogenius stock will reduce birth defects. Then it might be
expected for birth defects to become more prevalent than now because
there would be no heterogenius population to draw on. I hope there
will be a technological solution during the intervening period.
Hatter
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 01:36:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:45:57 -0000, AZ Nomad <aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
Civilization puts its own pressure on populations too. Give it a million
years, that's how long some of our former species ancestors had.
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 12:59:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:45:57 -0000, in alt.atheism , AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> in
<slrnfltfm4.cms.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
You have this about 100% wrong. Evolution is change in the
distribution of alleles. With reduced selection pressure there is
*more* diversification, more drift. And so more evolution.
By Randolph E. Schmid
updated 5:05 p.m. ET Dec. 10, 2007
WASHINGTON - {AP} Science-fiction writers have suggested a future
Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In
real life, the reverse seems to be happening.
Blending has nothing to do with evolution.
People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with
residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from
one another, researchers say.
Hardly. Easy travel is making everywhere the same and it still has
nothing to do with evolution.
<rest based on faulty premise snipped>
How about this:
Natural Selection - Evolution - Genetics - New York Times
"Researchers analyzing variation in the human genome have concluded
that human evolution accelerated enormously in the last 40,000 years
under the force of natural selection."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?ref=science
I am intrigued by the notion of an expanding population and increased
selection. It can be, and contradicts somewhat my claim above, but is
not obvious. This bears more examination.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 03:41:45 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:59:40 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:45:57 -0000, in alt.atheism , AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> in
<slrnfltfm4.cms.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
You have this about 100% wrong. Evolution is change in the
distribution of alleles. With reduced selection pressure there is
*more* diversification, more drift. And so more evolution.
But if the changes are not selected for then it is just change, not
evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Is human evolution speeding up? |
11 Dec 2007 07:57:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:11:45 +1030, in alt.atheism , Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> in <001ul3tq75avta6s0ogab335lqc2m2ee5j@4ax.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:59:40 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:45:57 -0000, in alt.atheism , AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> in
<slrnfltfm4.cms.aznomad.2@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:11:40 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22188535/?GT1=10645
Is human evolution speeding up?
Residents of various continents becoming increasingly different
Hardly. Evolution ended with the arrival of civilization. Once
you start changing the environment to suit yourself instead of
changing yourself to tolerate the environment, evolution has
ceased.
You have this about 100% wrong. Evolution is change in the
distribution of alleles. With reduced selection pressure there is
*more* diversification, more drift. And so more evolution.
But if the changes are not selected for then it is just change, not
evolution.
You don't get to make up the meaning of the term. Change is evolution.
Evolution is, by biological definition, the change in allele
frequencies in a population of reproducing biological individuals over
time. Your problem is that you have read too much Dawkins and think
that he has taught you about evolution. Dawkins ignores drift and
drift seems to cause more evolution than selection.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
