Planet of the Apemen

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

pretty ignorant shit that's all.

[Lemonade]

pretty ignorant shit that's all.

There's a difference between being ignorant and just not knowing something. Asking about a topic you don't understand isn't ignorant - quite the opposite in fact. However not knowing something and having no interest in finding out is (IMO).

[Guest Gladstone]

Right, Tam and OldGold - tell us all about it seeing as you're so fucking uber-intelligent.

[Guest Gladstone]

And silence. I genuinely want to know Tam - can you please enlighten me so I can stop being so ignorant?

[Oedo 808]

The two are closely correlated. It's impossible to pass on your genes if you die before reaching sexual maturity (in humans, after puberty). Our advances mean more people are living to this age. Even people with genetic diseases who would have died before this stage, are living long enough and being able to reproduce.

The point is a man or a woman who produces two children is genetically more successful than a man or woman who has one. That's natural selection. I think you're tied into this idea that something has to die without passing on its genes for natural selection to take place. In a rapidly expanding world population that's not the case.

However being a dickhead and not being able to keep a relationship with a woman is a means for not reproducing.

That's a bit of a confused sentence but for some reason you seem to be assuming that complete cunts don't get laid and that 'keeping a relationship' is in some way desirable.

[Guest Gladstone]

The point is a man or a woman who produces two children is genetically more successful than a man or woman who has one. That's natural selection. I think you're tied into this idea that something has to die without passing on its genes for natural selection to take place. In a rapidly expanding world population that's not the case.

That's a bit of a confused sentence but for some reason you seem to be assuming that complete cunts don't get laid and that 'keeping a relationship' is in some way desirable.

The second part of this - I know guys (well, I know one guy, have heard of other guys) that twatted it about when young and have hunners o little fuckers running about that they've fathered.

The guy that I know is a nice enough guy these days - and always (apart from a spell when he turned a bit fighty) pretty likeable. He was clearly a bit of a knob when it involved women. I know of at least 3 women he impregnated when they were in their teens (all legal, but teenagers nonetheless) (he would have been 2/3 years older than them). He did settle down and marry one of them and he has 2 kids with her. But he has at least 2 others that I know of, and there could be loads more.

Where does that sort of behaviour land in the theory of natural selection?

[Guest Tam o' Shantie]

And silence. I genuinely want to know Tam - can you please enlighten me so I can stop being so ignorant?

LOL I have awoken the dragon. "SILENCE!" well dude if you read this reply without saying each word out aloud there will be no sound at all, except maybe your lips moving a little bit.

Basically dude most people who have ever watched or read a little about humans or natural history could tell you that black people and white people are not different species of human. It is just very basic general knowledge that all humans are of the species Homo Sapiens. Similarly most people who have owned a dog or have even really thought about dogs for more than a few seconds in their lives should be able to tell you that 'dog' is one fucking species, and that a poodle and a rottweiler are two seperate breeds of one species, meaning that humans have selectively chosen to repeatedly breed two dogs with certain characteristics over time to create offspring who carry those same characteristics. It's as simple as that man, I would just expect most adults with some measure of intelligence to understand these basic concepts.

[Oedo 808]

There's a difference between being ignorant and just not knowing something.

Actually, no there's not. There's absolutely no difference between ignorance and not knowing something. That is how ignorance is defined. Most people are simply ignorant of the meaning of ignorance and use it liberally, unaware of the irony. As a catalyst for seeking out knowledge ignorance is a good thing.

If someone calls you ignorant it's usually safe to agree with them because 99% of the time they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

Where does that sort of behaviour land in the theory of natural selection?

Pretty much perfectly. It's just one evolutionary tactic.

The socially acceptable method in humans is to Marry (pair bond), have kids and invest in your few genetic offspring so they are (hopefully) successful and in turn are able to pass on their genes.

But as a man you have the option to try and pass on your genes to as many women as possible. You put less (or no) effort into each child meaning there is less chance they will be successful - you are playing a numbers game. You could do a mix of both like the guy in your example. Or you could be despot and impregnate hundreds, if not thousands of women.

Women don't have those same options, but they do have the option of finding one man to support their offspring and others to father their children. These are all just evolutionary strategies.

[TR!ΔNGL€ T€€TH]

The socially acceptable method in humans is to Marry (pair bond), have kids and invest in your few genetic offspring so they are (hopefully) successful and in turn are able to pass on their genes.

But as a man you have the option to try and pass on your genes to as many women as possible. You put less (or no) effort into each child meaning there is less chance they will be successful - you are playing a numbers game. You could do a mix of both like the guy in your example. Or you could be despot and impregnate hundreds, if not thousands of women.

Women don't have those same options, but they do have the option of finding one man to support their offspring and others to father their children. These are all just evolutionary strategies.

Has anyone ever told you that you come across as a misogynist, or at least sexist?

[Guest Gladstone]

LOL I have awoken the dragon. "SILENCE!" well dude if you read this reply without saying each word out aloud there will be no sound at all, except maybe your lips moving a little bit.

Basically dude most people who have ever watched or read a little about humans or natural history could tell you that black people and white people are not different species of human. It is just very basic general knowledge that all humans are of the species Homo Sapiens. Similarly most people who have owned a dog or have even really thought about dogs for more than a few seconds in their lives should be able to tell you that 'dog' is one fucking species, and that a poodle and a rottweiler are two seperate breeds of one species, meaning that humans have selectively chosen to repeatedly breed two dogs with certain characteristics over time to create offspring who carry those same characteristics. It's as simple as that man, I would just expect most adults with some measure of intelligence to understand these basic concepts.

Okay - I used the wrong fucking word. I did put in little inverted commas though because I was almost certain that "human" constituted a "species" - and if you read that last part of my original post, you'll see that that's what I was getting at. I've just never seen the evidence because I have never really read into it any sort of depth - only just thought about it to myself really.

I should have said "breed" when I referred to dog, not "species" - fucking hell, it's obvious what I meant.

And - that wasn't the crux of my post - most of it was in the first part which was asking why certain humans have certain characteristics such as white skin or dark skin or whatever.

Do people sometimes condescend others as part of an evolutionary tactic as well, or do they do that just because they are dicks?

[Surfer_Rosa]

Everyone seems to be missing the major issue here: people still say dude?

[Oedo 808]

Has anyone ever told you that you come across as a misogynist, or at least sexist?

If you're telling me I am coming across as a misogynist or sexist I can only imagine that I have not made myself sufficiently clear or that there has been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line. Perhaps you can explain what you have taken issue with.

[scottyboy]

Has anyone ever told you that you come across as a misogynist, or at least sexist?

It's probably not a choice that's made consciously. I've read more than once (off the top of my head, in The Spirit Level (leftie politics one, not Seamus Heaney's) and Simon/Burn's The Corner) that if one comes from, say, an impoverished background one is more likely to have more children and to have them earlier in the hopes that at least some of them will thrive to at least some extent. Whereas someone from a wealthier background will invest their resources into bringing up a smaller number of children and preparing them better for the big, bad world.

Hence why there are higher teenage pregnancies etc. in more deprived areas, or such is the theory. But I doubt any of those mothers/fathers thinks about it in terms of evolutionary theory. I'm sure one of these more enlightened posters can clear it up...

[keeno]

The point is a man or a woman who produces two children is genetically more successful than a man or woman who has one. That's natural selection. I think you're tied into this idea that something has to die without passing on its genes for natural selection to take place. In a rapidly expanding world population that's not the case.

That's a bit of a confused sentence but for some reason you seem to be assuming that complete cunts don't get laid and that 'keeping a relationship' is in some way desirable.

I suppose I am talking more about adaptive evolution than natural selection. It gets confusing with the whole fitness thing at times as the definition of that has changed since Darwin coined it, and I've not studied any biology for over 5 years.

As for the bit in bold, it was a joke, indicated by a not so subtle I shall refrain from putting any more into arguments in future.

Going back to evolution as opposed to natural selection (which was the point of Gladstone's initial post) what I meant to say was that in my opinion humans will not change much through natural means (genetic engineering of course is a different entity). Due to globalisation our genetics are becoming more varied and less selective for the traits which distinguish populations. We don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to our needs.

Now answering some questions from the original post in a bit more detail than has been so far.....

Is this some form of evolution? Are white people white for a reason?

Yes, due to the decreased amounts of melanin in our skin. As we experience less sun, we need less protection against UV radiation (melanin is produced in response to UV damage, to protect against more damage). As mankind moved further from the equator (where we are thought to originate, and all had dark skin due to the melanin) the need for the protection against the sunlight waned and the selective need for dark skin disappeared, so over the course of time we have evolved to produce less melanin and have paler skin as a result.

I assume we are because they tell us we are, but has it ever been shown that all humans of all ethnic backgrounds descend from homo sapiens?

Aside from the fact that our Nuclear DNA is almost identical between all humans, another way is to look at the DNA inside your mitochondria. Since it only has so few genes (all essential), and is maternally inherited, it varies a lot less than nuclear DNA. You can look at an entire families ancestry using this. See Mitochondrion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and specific to your question Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I just did my dissertation on mitochondrial antioxidant defence mechanisms so I do have an unfair advantage with regards to knowing that

The melanin thing is also interesting when you consider how our bodies produce vitamin D. (something like 40% of the population up here is vitamin D deficient so relevant!) but maybe that is just me being a geeky medic. It is also all on wikipedia

[Guest Gladstone]

I suppose I am talking more about adaptive evolution than natural selection. It gets confusing with the whole fitness thing at times as the definition of that has changed since Darwin coined it, and I've not studied any biology for over 5 years.

As for the bit in bold, it was a joke, indicated by a not so subtle I shall refrain from putting any more into arguments in future.

Going back to evolution as opposed to natural selection (which was the point of Gladstone's initial post) what I meant to say was that in my opinion humans will not change much through natural means (genetic engineering of course is a different entity). Due to globalisation our genetics are becoming more varied and less selective for the traits which distinguish populations. We don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to our needs.

Now answering some questions from the original post in a bit more detail than has been so far.....

Yes, due to the decreased amounts of melanin in our skin. As we experience less sun, we need less protection against UV radiation (melanin is produced in response to UV damage, to protect against more damage). As mankind moved further from the equator (where we are thought to originate, and all had dark skin due to the melanin) the need for the protection against the sunlight waned and the selective need for dark skin disappeared, so over the course of time we have evolved to produce less melanin and have paler skin as a result.

Aside from the fact that our Nuclear DNA is almost identical between all humans, another way is to look at the DNA inside your mitochondria. Since it only has so few genes (all essential), and is maternally inherited, it varies a lot less than nuclear DNA. You can look at an entire families ancestry using this. See Mitochondrion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and specific to your question Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I just did my dissertation on mitochondrial antioxidant defence mechanisms so I do have an unfair advantage with regards to knowing that

The melanin thing is also interesting when you consider how our bodies produce vitamin D. (something like 40% of the population up here is vitamin D deficient so relevant!) but maybe that is just me being a geeky medic. It is also all on wikipedia

Cheers - excellent post.

What about physical characteristics outside skin colour? Like size and shape of eyes / nose etc? Some groups (not sure what the correct word is!?) of humans share similar characteristics. I don't think this is stereotyping, but forgive me if it is - but in China (for example), most people have darker skin than white people, but some way from being "black", and they have very dark hair, and their eyes are shaped differently (from a lot of other "groups" of humans, but seem to be similar to each other within their "group"). Is there any reason for any of that?

I think the skin colour thing is probably covered by your point on distance from the equator - in China they will experience a lot more sun than we do in the UK but not as much as in an African nation closer to the equator. I'm getting there

[ca_gere]

The Epicanthic fold (which causes asian-looking eyes) is something we all have in the womb. It's only asian people who keep it after birth. I can't remember the reason for it though. Keeno?

[Old Gold]

I apologize Gladstone. Here's a very simple example of natural selection in regards to adaption to ones environment.

Darwin's finches - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Old Gold]

The Epicanthic fold (which causes asian-looking eyes) is something we all have in the womb. It's only asian people who keep it after birth. I can't remember the reason for it though. Keeno?

The 'round' eye probably originated as a mutation that happened to give a survival/breeding advantage in certain environments, while the non-mutation was preferable in other environments. It then continues because of people breeding within their own race, despite neither eye having a real advantage (albeit from an aesthetic standpoint) in the modern world.

Or vice versa.

[Oedo 808]

As for the bit in bold, it was a joke, indicated by a not so subtle I shall refrain from putting any more into arguments in future.

It was difficult for me to know that because the smiley didn't occur at the end of the sentence I quoted, but instead during the middle of the next sentence. I'm not used to seeing it done that way o_O so maybe that explains the confusion.

in my opinion humans will not change much through natural means (genetic engineering of course is a different entity). Due to globalisation our genetics are becoming more varied and less selective for the traits which distinguish populations. We don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to our needs.

It seems to me that this is a personal hunch rather than an idea based on evidence. I agree that adaptation can move more quickly in the petri dishes of genetic engineers than it can in nature but I think to imagine we have somehow removed ourselves from evolutionary forces is wrong. Technology and the adaptation of our environment won't cause biological adaptation to stop, it will simply alter the course. (And that's only when everyone has the benefit of those same technologies)

Last Night's TV - Horizon: Are We Still Evolving?, BBC2; Leah's Dream, ITV1 - Reviews, TV & Radio - The Independent

Are humans still evolving? | The Human Genome

Are human beings still evolving? It would seem that evolution is impossible now that the ability to reproduce is essentially universally available. Are we nevertheless changing as a species? : Scientific American

Or if you have more time and would like to hear a lecture on the subject: (Evolution speeding up?)

FORA.tv - Professor Christopher Dye: Are Humans Still Evolving?

In other news: still waiting for Jan to get back to me.