TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 'De-evolution'
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

IQ tests are bullshit. Perhaps its the way that they are brought up, i don't think its an actual selectoin pressure. The time frame is too short.

The brain is plastic. Everyone has different neural connections and pathways which are formed through experence and developed learning (not an evolutionary aspect) when we talk about humans with respect to other humans.

according to Y chromosomal DNA analysis, Ashkenazi jews came about around 10,000 years ago from Egyptian/ bahrain roots which first appeared 45,000 years ago. This tree also branched out to turkey and italy. Although this is speculative because the mTDNA doesn't show as much detail in their migration, you can surely expect some interbreeding to occur. This is true since you see some variation between mTDNA (maternal/mitochondrial) and Y chromosomal (paternal) DNA migration routes.

There are several points here.

random mating is occuring, you are not isolating genes.

those who are rich are not passing down any "rich genes" down to their kids. This is learned behaviour thus no genetic aspect selected for or against.

High IQ results can be attained by learned behaviour at critical learning stages in the child. (for instance chess at a young age)

child protigies usually have dumb ass parents. Though the link may be genetic, it certainly hasn't been isolated for and thus can be analogus to a random mutation like a sixth finger or something.

So again, there are no selective pressures, its simply learned behaviour (being smart with money is equivalent to doing your math homework at a young age and training yourself at that critical learning stage).

I take you back to The ancient egyptians, babylonians and greeks who lived thousands of years ago. I honestly believe that their intelligence was identical if not superior to ours.

sorry, here is my source for that migration stuff so you know im not talking out of my butt

https://genographic.nationalgeograp...n/en/atlas.html

De-evolution does not really exist.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy true. Op said 1000 years.. That's nowhere near long enough for significant biological differentiation to occur

I said 1000+ years, meaning anything over that.

quote:

Originally posted by mysticalninja That's not how evolution works. Evolution occurs when natural selection chooses a random mutation to live on. Evolution is completely random without natural selection to guide it. Social surroundings have nothing to do with it, nothing guides evolution except survival. Nothing besides genetic engineering can sway the mutations. they are random.

Do you have proof that mutations are random? I disagree with that, I think changes in physiology are a direct biological response to the challenges a species faces in their direct environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit IQ tests are bullshit.

I don't think IQ tests tell the whole story about a person's mind, but I think they are useful in assessing how quick someone is at doing basic tasks like sorting things and recognizing patterns, which are involved in many applications of "intelligence."

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Do you have proof that mutations are random? I disagree with that, I think changes in physiology are a direct biological response to the challenges a species faces in their direct environment.

The environment just eliminates certain individuals, resulting in differential survival of different phenotypes and their corresponding genotypes. Mutations are simply errors in the copying of DNA. The environment doesn't directly cause these errors, except in a few cases like radiation, viral infection, or exposure to certain chemicals.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I said 1000+ years, meaning anything over that.

True.. but then why not 100+ or 1+ to be safe. The true figure is in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Several orders of magnitude higher than your lower limit to the point that it is safe to assume you had a much lower estimation in mind.

quote:

Do you have proof that mutations are random? I disagree with that, I think changes in physiology are a direct biological response to the challenges a species faces in their direct environment.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is the most elegant attempt thus far to explain what has been observed. We see random mutations occurring across the animal (and plant) kingdom quite regularly.. for the most part to the detriment of the individual involved. Natural selection specifically refers to the process by which those mutations which prove beneficial are naturally kept in the gene pool because those individuals are more likely to survive and breed with more partners.
Certain environmental pressures can increase the rate of mutation - say for example exposure to certain chemicals or radiation. But they have not been observed to affect the direction of mutation - for example while many of the people living in the vicinity of the "Polygon" where the USSR tested nuclear devices suffered genetic mutations; none of them developed a freakish genetic immunity to harmful radiation through a new mutation.
The Lederberg experiment confirmed that immunity to penicilin in bacteria occurred through natural selection of randomly mutated strains rather than as a direct response to exposure to the penicillin.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Do you have proof that mutations are random?

its about as true as the theory of gravity. When we say random however im sure that it isnt actually random

Sometimes when molecules pair up and are binding to a site they may structure and position themselves to be able to fit in a site where they are not suppose to go. For instance in DNA replication you have nucleotides which bind together to form a double helix. This double helix is basically an instruction manual to form protiens and compounds which your body uses. When these compounds are needed, chemical reactions take place to signal segments of the DNA to translate its code to form the compounds. So sometimes the wrong nucleotides are substituted in or even not placed at all and you get an error in the DNA. IT is not random per say, as there are chemical gradients bond energy and positioning involved, but in turn there is no direct explanation for these misshaps so we say that it is random. These "random" mutations can code for incorrect compounds and in turn cause the organism to develop specific traits or physiological differences. A good example would be to look at hox genes. A single mutation can cause a fly to have 4 wings instead of 2. Thats the power of mutations. So you think if this is plausable then you can see how random mutations can cause an organism to change drastically over time.


I think thats the jist of it.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I don't think IQ tests tell the whole story about a person's mind, but I think they are useful in assessing how quick someone is at doing basic tasks like sorting things and recognizing patterns, which are involved in many applications of "intelligence."

doing basic tasks for our species is an acquired (learned) trait. The critical learning age plays a huge roll in this. Look at all child protegy's again. how come we hear nothing of their parents? its not a heritable trait that is passed down, or at least it is not present in every generation.

I am a firm believer that you can take anyone of any ethnicity and train them to be just as intelligent. We have a black president running the united states, Amazing russian chess players that can calculate the permuations of moves for a game, Egyptians that built the pyramids and ran the longest running civilization thus far, Famous painters and sculpters from italy, Jewish economists and bankers. The list goes on. The point is intelligence for our species is an evolved trait thats for sure, but if your going to segregate it to race or groups of people, i would have to disagree. There are not valid selection pressures that are going to segregate for intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit Jewish economists and bankers.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail

what?

did you want me to say lawyers?

Re: Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by ******** but I think there is a certian value that seperates human from beast.

free time

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit doing basic tasks for our species is an acquired (learned) trait. The critical learning age plays a huge roll in this. Look at all child protegy's again. how come we hear nothing of their parents?

We don't? Mozart's father was acknowledged to be the best music teacher in Europe. John Stuart Mill's dad was a renowned historian. I don't think you can say that the parents of child prodigies are generally dunces or unremarkable.

I'm not saying at all that intelligence can't be influenced by environment. Being trained by smart parents is probably one big reason why Mozart and J.S. Mill succeeded in the ways that they did.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy True.. but then why not 100+ or 1+ to be safe. The true figure is in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. Several orders of magnitude higher than your lower limit to the point that it is safe to assume you had a much lower estimation in mind.

Really?

It's only been 5-600 years since America was discovered and already the facial features of Americans are becoming distinctive when compared with those of other Caucasian nations. Ear lobes have also started to disappear only in the past 500 years.

Evolution happens a lot more quickly than you think.

to be fair i think it has a lot more to do with fried chicken and fried lard

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles We don't? Mozart's father was acknowledged to be the best music teacher in Europe. John Stuart Mill's dad was a renowned historian. I don't think you can say that the parents of child prodigies are generally dunces or unremarkable. I'm not saying at all that intelligence can't be influenced by environment. Being trained by smart parents is probably one big reason why Mozart and J.S. Mill succeeded in the ways that they did.

fair enough. But you cannot compare the genius of mozzart however to his father. Haven't you ever seen that show about child geniuses where the parents are like working minimum wage and their kids can do complex algebra at the age of 6? Thats critical learning age influence, not a genetic perfection created by the mating of two average parents.

It also has to do with luck as neural pathways are formed somewhat randomly within the brain throughout learning experience.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated Really? It's only been 5-600 years since America was discovered and already the facial features of Americans are becoming distinctive when compared with those of other Caucasian nations. Ear lobes have also started to disappear only in the past 500 years. Evolution happens a lot more quickly than you think.

I'm not aware of any empirical research to support this claim, but even assuming this is true it would not be an example of evolution. More likely it is a homogenisation of certain aspects of the gene pool.. eg. get a bunch of black people and a bunch of Chinese people dump them on an island and come back in 500 years.. it'll be an island of "Chi-Negroes" with their own unique facial traits... this will not, however be a direct result of new mutations that selectively stayed in the gene pool as a result of environmental pressures. ie it is not evolution.

A better example of an evolved trait would be something like the preponderance of sickle-cell disease among populations where malaria is prevalent. This is a unique, inherited, genetic trait that is overwhelmingly prevalent in one population, where it carries a survival value while being pretty much absent in all others. It now affects 1 in 3 people in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the first mutation probably occurred in the Arabian peninsula 70-150 thousand years ago, it would be fascinating to graph the rate at which the trait became more and more common over the years.

Having said that, the book isn't closed on whether evolutions works in jerks or creeps.. I think most people say a bit of both.

i guess it would be comparable to the selective breeding of dogs or muts,

you have alot of morphological differences between dogs but they are still the same species.

It is not an example of evolution since the environment is not creating a pressure on them to change a certain way. Instead humans are selectively breeding them.

As humans we have a choice of who we breed with. if we breed with different races we will have different outcomes.

long ear lobes could be a recessive gene, thus you breed with natives as a caucasian the ear lobes may disapear in the next generation. Another plausable explanation would be the following. I don't think native populations were very large, so if you throw in an abundant amount of caucasians with phenotypic differences (visual traits) they will overwhelm those of the natives and eventually they may dissipate.

lets give an example of dogs:


you have 3 labradors and 50 german Shepperd.
eventually all the dogs will look like german Shepperd.

This is not evolution and can be thought more of as selective breeding

It comes down to semantics. essentially you have the same mechanism working here. Mutations that were naturally selected for and now you are overwhelming them with breeding from a different group to dilute or dissipate them out. This is not evolution where as the original acquired traits were (Through random mutation and selective pressures form the environment that made the traits advantageous.)

I hope this may help clear things up.

This is just an addition to what astroboy said which i obviously agree with.

Evolution is change in frequency of heritable traits within a population over time, so the examples you gave are examples of evolution. Humans are as much a part of a dog's environment as anything else is.

Re: Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I lived in absolute solitude for a about two months, doing nothing but reading books; after them two months, you see, I got out and, verbally, had trouble putting sentences together. True story.

Would love to hear more about that.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Evolution is change in frequency of heritable traits within a population over time, so the examples you gave are examples of evolution. Humans are as much a part of a dog's environment as anything else is.

"random mating must occur"

this is one of the clauses for evolution to take place.

its not natural selection if we are choosing who the dogs mate. its force selection and selective breeding.

Its a play on words but there is a reason why evolution is so gradual and slective mating the results occur extremely quickly

It's what plants crave.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.