Atheism

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Pretty In Pink, Feb 6, 2012.

  1. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    You're not misunderstanding. I'm saying that once we developed the capacity for technology e.g. tool making and fire. It was a game changer. Technology has allowed a great many genetic trait to be passed along that would have normally been bred out of the species. Actually I think that it is this that helped create what we call human civilization. Allowing for a de-specialisation of the species for want of a better word. It was no longer just the strongest, smartest, fastest surviving to pass on their genes. This is why we see the exponential population growth. Technology has allowed humans to handle evironment and cultural change without the need for genetic change. Now micro-evolutions will still happen as the species adapt to localised environment and societal conditions but most of these aren't survival of the species issues. Lactose intolerance isn't going to stop you breeding. So there is a form of indirect selection. However this is not going to lead to significant changes in the species. In fact as our technology advances these will are also likely to being to disappear. The development of anti-malaria drugs will remove the need for sickle cells.
    I'm not saying that all evolution has stopped I'm just saying that technology is the critical factor in human evolution at the moment rather than culture or environment. I also believe that this has been the case for a significant period of time.

    The Bear.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2012
  2. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Actually no it doesn't. Easy example to see is domestic animal breeding programs. You can start to effect changes within a few generations.


    No, Aiki this isn't the case. You are no smarter than an ancient greek. You aren't smarter than the people that built stonehenge. The advantage we have is as the saying goes, "we can see farther because we are standing on the shoulders of giants." It is the accumulation of recorded knowledge that has advanced techology not an increase of intelligence.

    The Bear.
     
  3. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    The Flynn effect says otherwise!
     
  4. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Also IQ tests are a very poor measure of intelligence. Hell you might as well use GCSE results. Given the same training, nutrition and environment. A 10,000 year old human would match you.


    The Bear.
     
  5. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Proof?
     
  6. Dead_pool

    Dead_pool Spes mea in nihil Deus MAP 2017 Moi Award

    Actually talking og 10,000 have you read "the 10,000 year explosion" what did you think?
     
  7. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    In the US IQ tests of the 1940s Black people were rated between 15-18 points less than whites. Between 1972 and 1992 the difference dropped to 5-6 points. So did Black people evolve greater average intelligence in 20 years?

    IQ is a good indicator of intelligence but you have to be aware of it's flaws. In fact I know one person with a PhD who has a rated IQ of 60. They were highly intelligent but according to the IQ test they were only the equivalent of 60 P.E. teachers.

    The Bear.
     
  8. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Not read it, sorry.

    The Bear.
     
  9. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

    In nature it does where the gene pool is less restrictive. Domestic breeding programs are highly concentrated microcosms.


    I'd be inclined to disagree. It's not enough to be able to read a text book. You must also be able to understand and then put that understanding into practice. Information alone isn't enough. It seems people really are getting smarter.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/08/03/are-smart-people-really-getting-smarter/
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/are-smart-people-getting-smarter/
     
  10. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    There's lots of reasons to criticise IQ tests however... I think it's fair to say that there has been some improvement in the impartiality of the tests since the 1940s. It is also worth noting that it is such a controversial area that it would be complete career suicide for researchers to suggest that there was a difference in intelligence based on ethnic background even if such a difference was found in their data.

    Basically I agree with you but I just think your pushing things a little too far. I'm inclined to believe there is good evidence that our evolutionary history has bred us to specialise in social interactions and there are other selection pressures rather than environment that have pushed such changes. Sexual selection for instance remains as relevant in the modern era as it was in our remote prehistory.

    Again I agree with everything you are saying but I think you extend your conclusions a bit too far after all natural selection doesn't operate at the species level. Hence the fact that recent adaptations are not issues effecting the 'survival of the ENTIRE species' is a bit irrelevant. In European populations around 90% of people have genes for digesting lactose in adulthood, that is direct evidence that actually developing such a metabolic ability did have an effect fitness as otherwise why would the gene be so widespread in Europe and so notably absent in other regions where cattle raising was less significant?

    Fitness isn't a binary measurement it's determined by number of surviving offspring that reproduce, so the fact that lactose intolerant individuals would be able to reproduce isn't really relevant. And again as mentioned above it's obvious lactose tolerance does lead to fitness benefits in certain environments due to the very fact that it is so common amongst specific geographic populations. If it only had a minor effect then we shouldn't see the spread that we do. And as far as 'significant changes' go, how do you define 'significant'? I would suggest that the ability to effectively metabolise milk into adult life is indeed a 'significant' biological change for our species. The fact that it didn't sweep across the whole human species is irrelevant because a) that isn't a requirement for something to be recognised as a 'significant' adaptation and b) it would have only been a useful adaptation in environments where non-human milk was plentiful and increased consumption could improve fitness.

    Yes but taking anti-malarial drugs won't change our inherited genetics and until they are available to the vast majority of the human population biological resistance will still remain under selection. I agree that the situation is changing with globalisation but I don't think we are quite at the level where there are no longer selection pressures acting on us.

    I don't see how you can possibly divorce technology from culture or environment. Technology doesn't develop externally from culture in fact the opposite is true, our technology is almost inextricably linked to our cultural values and our human psychological quirks. Silicon valley couldn't have been built without there already existing a collective culture which enabled and encouraged individuals to innovate and design labour saving/communication devices.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2012
  11. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    When we can even define intelligence then we can actually devise a proper test for it. I could easily create an intelligence test that a chimpanzee would wipe the floor with you every time but it wouldn't mean the monkey is smarter than you. Intelligence testing IS culturally specific.

    Well no, most humans now live to sexual maturity. They are also far more likely to have children that survive to adulthood. Therefore the pressures are nothing like prehistory.

    Yes so it's a minor adaptation to local conditions. Like fat eskimoes and skinny equatorial people.

    Significant changes I would define at and adaptation that leads to subspecies creation or pervasion though out the species. There are no human subspecies. While we talk about different races etc the truth is we are one species with astonishly small amount of variation. It is only our difference seeking cognitive functions that tell us different.

    I didn't say no pressure are affecting us but that they are drastically reduced.

    Well you can't divorce anything from anything but technology has driven culture just as much as culture has driven technology. Look at MAP itself look at the effect this technology has had on martial culture. Technology has asserted dominance in our culture and has taken on a life of it's own.

    The Bear.
     
  12. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    anecdotally i hear what you and others are saying. it's just that i have not seen any real evidence of this. not that there aren't published studies, it's just that i have not seen them yet, so i'll withhold judgement for now.
     
  13. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    It might if it stops you being able to access milk as a food source and so you end up dying in a drought.
    Or your mate next door ends up with 4 living kids that have their own children where you only have 2 that do that.
    I'm sure that's exactly how lactose tolerance evolved in humans.
    Something doesn't have to stop you breeding totally in order for evolution to "use"...just make you breed less (although not breeding altogether is a very effective way to power evolution).
     
  14. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    I think it's alittle more complicated than that especially in a species in constant population growth. However there is also the argument that the existing mutation is what caused the spread of dairy farming rather than dairy farming giving rise to the mutation. Then in turn this population grew because of the mutation and the corresponding farming technology. Something that could not happen in a non-technical species. This would be evidence of technology rapidly improving species selection.

    The Bear.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2012
  15. aikiwolfie

    aikiwolfie ... Supporter

  16. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Cough... cough...

    I think your argument is a bit inconsistent. The point of bringing up the varying degree of lactose intolerance worldwide was that it is one demonstration of how gene frequency in populations can be altered by a social change (the development of cattle raising). You have argued that this isn't a 'significant' change because it didn't lead to a new subspecies. This is already a rather skewed perspective on evolution but then in the post above you switch to suggesting that the development of 'new technology' (cattle raising) might have drove evolutionary processes. Do you not see any inconsistency there?

    Finally, focusing on 'species selection' when we are discussing 'natural selection' is a bit odd- selection pressures don't tend to function at the 'species' level.
     
  17. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    What my original argument is that technology is circumventing natural selection. Gene frequency is always going to increase in an expanding population. Especially as the early Indo-Europeans were, expanding into empty territory. They expanded to fill the vaccuum. It's not like they replaced an indigenous people because the were better adapted to survive.

    The technology aspect of our species is why no other species has been able to adapt to counter our dominance. It doesn't matter what they do we have always used our technology to overwhelm them. Hence the extinction event in progress. We've broken the evolutionary process of the planet because it simply doesn't matter what adaptations other species try, as we just out tech them.

    You cannot evolve to defeat a technical species. Therefore selection becomes the choice of the overlords. Much like today where culture is no longer evolving but being created by media because we now understand the psychological triggers to push to make people do almost anything. Turn off your TV and Internet for 12 months and see how far you drift from the culture. I gave up TV and now it's hard from me to talk to most people because the mention lots of cultural references I don't understand.

    The Bear.
     
  18. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Well yeah. I assume that's an unsaid caveat in any discussion of this sort.
    But I've recently read somewhere that a mutation only need increase fitness by some small marginal number (0.005% or something) for that mutation to become common in only a few generations.
    Can't remember the exact numbers.

    I do agree that humans have bypassed large areas of evolution by natural selection though.
     
  19. LilBunnyRabbit

    LilBunnyRabbit Old One

    Not quite true - there is strong evidence that evolution has continued, although in a more internal fashion. The complexity of networks in our brains has continued to develop non-stop. Whether that's a case of nature or nurture, however, is open to debate.

    Humans can no longer digest raw food. Can you explain that development in terms of natural selection alone, rather than with cultural influences affecting the environment?

    Extremely unlikely, since we'd need to recognise lactose tolerance prior to developing dairy. There'd be no way to determine that we were lactose tolerant, without dairy. You're very much mixing cause and effect there, and I'm not quite sure why. It's obvious that sociological changes in a culture have an effect upon the environment, which will have a corresponding effect on the human population in that environment.

    In other words we've evolved to edit our environment, and we continue to evolve to take advantage of our now human-influenced environment.

    Evidence is emerging that we are actually evolving faster than species in natural environments. After all, in a natural environment change is slow, and therefore pressures are equally slow. In an artificial environment however change and corresponding pressures are extremely rapid.

    Evidence is emerging that over the last 10 000 years alone we have at least 2 000 genetic adaptations, including shrinking teeth and skull size, a diminishing stature, digestive changes and significant changes in the brain.

    After a bit of searching I managed to find a paper addressing a limited subset of these mutations - http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol4n1/genome.xml
     
  20. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Saying that it could be nature/nurture kind of invalidates the first sentence that it is strong evidence of biological adaptation, no?

    Humans can digest raw food e.g. sushi. I also ate raw chicken on a recent trip to Japan and suffered no ill consequences. The fact that we are now more specialised to eating cooked food is true but I don't know why you are asking me to attribute it solely to natural selection when I am one of the people arguing that social developments can affect evolution...

    I'm confused by this. How are our artificial environments supposed to be increasing selection pressures exactly? Evolutionary change is typically 'slow' due to lifespans and the rate at which beneficial mutations occur and I don't see how living in modern societies with (I would argue) reduced selection pressures means our biological evolution is speeding up? Also, evolutionary change is not necessarily 'slow' for lots of short lived, mutation prone species. I don't agree with Polar Bear that social developments cannot impact evolutionary development but I think it is obviously the case that our cultural evolution far out speeds our biological adaptations.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2012

Share This Page