Still another evolution topic

[13788]

Spyderdan: ***New member's proposition(a really long post -_- , bare with me)***

I just read the Mouse's Topic about evolution and probably should have posted an actual reply in that topic, but I figured I'd make a ballsy attempt at my own topic because what I say is a little different. Plus I'm new and this way maybe I could get feedback from people around the whole forum. And not really to get attention, but to see if anyone can comment. Here goes.

I think, as a species we'll evolve to have no specific race. I mean think about it, the dark skin because of the hot sun. Eskimo's find thicker women atractive, because they need to breed for the cold, etc. etc.. All of this happened for a reason, so the species will survive against the elements in its own environment.
Now all of these things are irrelevant so we won't need to actually worry (not literally) about these things. I say this as a collective subconscience evolutionary effort of course. Before we can think of a million years from now (so long as no major disasters occur that we can't rebound from) and how humans will look, act, how smart they will evolve to be, etc., look at what's happening now. I agree, there is so much inter-breeding, that's true. And not only that, there are no boundaries, whereas before the Native Americans at one point didn't dream of being in contact with any other race until the Spanish came along. Now, there's the internet and an unabated ability to be anywhere in the world at whim(modern travel capabilities), an unabated ability to learn from other cultures and lands (a safari in Tanzania is jammed with tourists from all over more so than even 50 years ago). The average Joe will not stay in his hometown his whole life like before. Maybe before, people didn't understand each other because of boundaries. People have their own set beliefs and they tend to counteract with another's. There has never been a war fought between right and wrong, just two rights. The Christians and the Muslims both beleived in the one true "god", they were both "right" hence the bloody Crusades. What a waste. But modern days people may be opening their eyes because they kind of have to with all cultures starting to jumble together.
So, what we may have here is the species just naturally gearing toward a one specific race, because of the mingling of all these races. Now, I'm ignorant but isn't it true that pop icons from one country (i.e. America) are worshipped all over the world (Hasselhoff in Germany; American and English rock star hairstyles on posters in a barbershop in Japan?). This is just one example.
Its not done consciously at all. There can be no Hitler to try to find one specific super-race, that doesn't work, nature will eventually do this whether anyone likes it or not. I'm not even saying that any one person's attributes nowadays is better than anyone else's. Trust me I agree we are all unique, I'm just saying nature "decided" to make all Asians a specific "look" for a reason and whatnot, but soon there will be no "look," there is no need for it. A better way of putting it, is all of the races will sort of combine and the one race will have features from all.
When the brain evolved to think about making that spear, defending against the tiger and using its skins, the body evolved to not need as much hair on the body. Now that people of all colors are living, and reproducing in all cultures and geographic areas, and technology is headed towards making things such as the elements almost totally insignificant, do you really think the body will really need these primitive bodily survival measures (skin color)?
If we survive, (and the only thing, the ONLY thing that will kill us off is something like a meteor or other great natural disaster that happens quicker than our brains and technological advances can react to) some years in the future, there will be one race, one people, one government, one currency, one color, one language, one set of traits, formed not built, through trial and error selections and genetics or what have you. Not for what you or I could call "the better good" but what nature "chooses" to be the only good, the way it is. We are changing against our will, and we will only see the beginnings of all this in our lifetimes, but the human race is hardwired to reproduce and survive. Culture is important, but its the basic human brain that's really important.
If you gave me any credability so far (thanks for reading so far) I'll probably lose some if not all by saying I think eventually, millions of years from now nature will realize we don't even need bodies anymore. How's that for OUT THERE? We'll just be cosmic entities, no one will care or even know that once there were color issues, etc. No one will have an inkling of an idea there were ever issues or support groups for penis size, or breast cancer. Sex will be mental, you will feel orgasm the same way, and aw shit, sorry folks this is getting too outer limits. Maybe its speculation or just wishful thinking.
To sum it up, this post was about one of my opinions of what may happen, and how race should not be an issue, and humans have always pulled through the tough times. With every new advance comes some harm, but then a new advance rebounds and we become even smarter (i.e.- fire gave warmth and light and cooked food, but then people were burned, but then we got smart and warned about fire, put up sticks to block the fire, etc.etc.) We've rebounded from previous problems (influenza [now look at it], etc.) and will ALWAYS survive and come back no matter what the problem is (AIDS, we will, etc. etc.) We'll evolve for the better or die trying. We will survive. "At first I was afraid, I was terrified......." sorry. Now I'm definately rambling.


Anyway, I know there are other posts about evolution, and maybe people said the same thing, well sorry maybe i didn't read that post. Here's just my opinion I will admit right now I probably don't know what I'm talking about, or even much about the subject at all. I just hope someone will comment. Hey we're all entitled.
Members out there, please shoot this idea down if you will, I will gladly accept criticism. Just don't attack me, because I mean you no harm.


Anyway,
Back to the basics
Spyder-D


P.S.-Phew, that was painful. Sorry for the length and if it was all over the place

P.P.S.- You may say as people seek out the best gene to reproduce, and maybe nature does that anyway, I say my dad was adopted and knows who his mother is. The father although is completely unknown. So, maybe his biological mother got horny and just fucked some sailor in port. No searching, or maybe even no attraction whatsoever, just spontaneous oppurtunity, got knocked up, here he is, here I am. Couldn't all this just be totally random?

 

[jonb]

Race has little, if any, biological significance.

 

[Pecker]

I agree, jon. If all of the needed circumstances finally do occur and "race" is irrelevant because of intermixing, it won't be because of evolution.

 

[Dr Rock]

a few points worth considering:

1) there is practically no difference at the genetic level between any races, even after 30,000 years of continuous divergence and/or convergence. to us, people of different races might look radically different to each other. but in evolutionary terms, the child of one black parent and one white parent is so similar to the child of two white or two black parents that there is virtually no room for recombination anyway. to put it another way: to other humans the kid might look more or less like one parent or the other, but to a dog or a bee or a shark you can bet it'll look exactly the same as every other human out there.

2) studies have consistently demonstrated that even within modern multiracial societies, the vast majority of couples are of the same race. that isn't so much a social effect as an inevitable product of human nature. the increase in recorded mixed-race marriages, at least, has actually slowed down over the past 15-20 years or so (I know marriage records are not a particularly accurate source of information in this respect, but they're the only one we're likely to get). while I think the proportion of mixed-race couples will continue to increase at a varying rate, I suspect that, simply as a result of human nature, they will never outnumber the same-race couples.

3) as a species, we've almost completely divorced ourselves from the natural processes of evolution with the widespread use of modern medicine, welfare states, housing, food production ... in fact pretty much any technological or social advance you care to name. that is, after all, the whole point - to protect and insure ourselves against the harsh vagaries of the natural world. we see it as progress from our point of view, but from the evolutionary point of view it's actually stagnation. various people will tell you that's either a good thing or a bad thing depending on their opinion - personally I couldn't care less either way - but the fact remains that the factors which promoted our evolution to our current state are no longer acting upon our species to any relevant degree. it remains to be seen which of the newer, mostly artificial factors will come to predominate in their effect (if any) on our genome (a few have been tentatively identified already), and what kinds of change they will encourage (again, if any).

 

[13788]

Spyderdan: I just didn't know, oh well, just an idea. Thanks and gramercy! I may think I'm a cunning linguist, but you're master debaters. I'll shut up.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Dude. Don't you "ever" quit. I mean, debates are all cool and that. But some people actually have 'lives'. It isn't a dishonour to drop a subject y'know.

*Will remember to quote this to you at the age of 70*

 

[jonb]

Isn't the opposite of evolution revolution? We could all go for that; everyone under 30 is a Marxist, even if they make more money than Paris Hilton and work half as hard as her.

 

[Dr Rock]

okay I'll bite. what biological significance does race have? and how does interracial breeding affect evolution or the "opposite"?

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Mar 7 2005, 11:15 PM
okay I'll bite. what biological significance does race have? and how does interracial breeding affect evolution or the "opposite"?

[post=289115]Quoted post[/post]​

Very little. Race only tells the outside physical attributes such as skin color, type of nose and things like that. We know that biologically speaking there is no real diffference. I am sure that as time goes on we will look more and more alike in some ways and the prediction of what a child will look like will be likely and the mix of genees from parents will have more possibilities.

But races as we know them, are not a true sub species as I understand it. There are no biolocial differences to indicate that we are a sub species and are headed into more than one species. No evidence form reliable scientists that I know of.

 

[Freddie53]

First of all I base what I said on some of the material presented here by some who know more than I do that the DNA samples from the races don't indicate subspecies and that the DNA is almost identical. That is what I based it on. Yet you give an convincing argument about cranial differences and then you admitted that there are some areas you need Jon to enlighten you on. Well if that be the case. you know I need enlightened.

In dogs we say breeds, not races. So you indicated that the term sub-species is not a strong aribtary word. So while I tend to use race exclusively and not the wrod sub species. using some definitions the word sub species might be accurate..

Take wolfs and dogs, in spite of one being domesticated and one wild, there is almost no differentiation in the DNA. Yet, most people say that dogs are not the same species. And scientists say yes they are.

So, my answer is not arbitary at all. It was just based on what information I had at the time. I am certainly glad to change my mind when presented with credible evidence.

However, as a social studies teacher I like the word race best. Simply because it is understood by everyone. Subspecies is not even a term that many people even recognize. They don't remember learning the word in biology.

Your last statement is the one that we don't totally agree with. It doesn't bother me if we all become one race in terms of looks and that kind of thing.

Ethnic groups can continue their heritage societies forever. As a white man, I can join the African-American Heritage Society that promotes African-American history, literature, culture and the like. An African-American in race can join an English Lituratrure Heritage group as well.

I would hate to lose the rich cultture that the different cultures provide to the world. It is not necessary to preserve our biological differences to preserve out heritages.

I am part of modern Aemrican society. I can't be a part of 1900 society. Society is made up of the people that actually lived at the time. Culture elements can be a part of any society anywhere. They can be forgotten and then resurrected.

So I love our American society and the culture that is has and all the subculture groups it has. It is very rich. Nothing needs to be thrown away except hate, prejudice, and all of those elements. We could do well to let those go.

But why can't I go to South Dakota and participate in a ceremony with Jonb.

And Johb can come to my Methodist Church as is welcome to take Communion if in his heart he feels qualifed. That is his choice. It will be offered to him. That is our doctrine.

So why not every American celebrating some of the richness that the Native American culture can bring to our modern socieity and the same for every other ethnic group that livies in this great nation of people?

Unfortunately I see this getting away from us if we allow our preent leaders to continue on the path that they are taking us on.

Jonb is Native American. I welcome him as my brother. And I have told him that I expect to see him in the afterlife regardless what name in any language might be put upon it. I am not the judge, but I think he knows the Creator and the Creator knows him and they are tight. That is what matters in the realm of religion. Your relationship with God.

So let's celebrate all cultures. We know that probably the races will become less fixed as time goes on. So what. Do we have to have a flat nose soceity that excludes. NO.

This is a big dick society and women are members. I have a small dick. When I joined I told that and the support I got was overwhelming. It was just wonderful to get that kind of support from these well hung guys. I can be a member and celebrate big dicks even though I myself don't have one.

That is the way our society should be.

Jonb, my hat is off to you are your peoples and various nations of Native Americans. Even though there were white people who tried to kill off a bunch of your peoples, I doubt the white man would have made it without the friendship given my many of the nations of Native Aemricans. And we do have a heritage in our society from you.

Thanks to all Native Americans for what your culture has contributed to our modern society today. And my those descendents have their lives richly blessed and the poverty that some endure end. That part is a national disgrace and we deserve to be put on the United Nations list of nations that have oppressed people because of our continued treatment of some Native Aemricans. That is just my opinion. But hey my opinion is just as important as anyone elses.

So I close this with Hey let's celebrate all the things that all cultures have brought to our society. Let's be aware of our biological differences and tendencies due to our genes for certain diseases. (In my case heart disease and stroke) Let's continue to move to a time when we are judged solely on who we are, what we believe, what we do, and what we have accomplished. That should be our goal as a society.

Freddie

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Mar 8 2005, 05:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Mar 8 2005, 05:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Originally posted by Freddie53@Mar 8 2005, 11:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr Rock

@Mar 7 2005, 11:15 PM
okay I&#39;ll bite.  what biological significance does race have?  and how does interracial breeding affect evolution or the "opposite"?

[post=289115]Quoted post[/post]​

Very little. Race only tells the outside physical attributes such as skin color, type of nose and things like that. We know that biologically speaking there is no real diffference. I am sure that as time goes on we will look more and more alike in some ways and the prediction of what a child will look like will be likely and the mix of genees from parents will have more possibilities.

But races as we know them, are not a true sub species as I understand it. There are no biolocial differences to indicate that we are a sub species and are headed into more than one species. No evidence form reliable scientists that I know of.

[post=289222]Quoted post[/post]​

I know from my studies in anthropology that there are visible differences in crania amongst racial groups. Your statement that race is only soft part morphology, therefore, is incorrect.

Yes, "races" as we know them are indeed subspecies if going by the actual definition, but. I don&#39;t know the exact cladistics(I hope JonB will enlighten me). Put simply, a subspecies is a geographical population with differing genetic frequencies and biological traits that can be correlated.

There may even be a possibility (inprobable, but Darwin believed it) that different human "races" are actually different species. The actual definition of species makes a vague reference to "isolation," and that can be interpreted as the inability to interbreed or by just geographic isolation. There is enough evidence, for me, to support the fact that closely related members of a genus can interbreed, but I come to the conclusion that the human "races" are most likely subspecies.

To answer the original question to this thread, yes, if current trends continue subspecies will be destroyed. That isn&#39;t very nice at all now is it?

[post=289312]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

 

[jonb]

ChimeraTX -- The problem is that races are what&#39;s called polyphyletic categories. The DNA doesn&#39;t fit into particular racial types very easily. As for cranial measures, I should point out that phrenology was both right and wrong. It was right in that 1) the brain was the center of consciousness, and 2) different parts of the brain govern different things. It was wrong in the idea that this could be shown by cranial measures. Eminences and depressions on the head, cephalic indices, and the like aren&#39;t that useful for determining one&#39;s true nature.

Darwin actually didn&#39;t believe in a distinctive character between the races: "But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory de St-Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."

Freddie -- Actually, you would be persona non grata at a Sundance. Too many wannabes telling us we&#39;re doing it wrong, so those with no genealogical link generally aren&#39;t allowed.

You&#39;re right they wouldn&#39;t survive. Jamestown actually resorted to cannibalism because, since they were all members of the elite (or is that l33t?), no one wanted to work.

You&#39;d be surprised, but the U.S. only ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with the reservation that Americans would be exempted -- in 1988.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Mar 9 2005, 03:22 AM
Cultures remain too theoretic and inpalpable to have a long-term effect on humanity in my opinion.

students of ancient greek, roman or chinese civilization might disagree with you there.

I think that it is better collectively for one&#39;s own species/subspecies to prevent the propagation of less desirable elements. In an ethical way, you could just encourage desirable elements to breed more, with little or no harm done to those less so.

whose moral parameters are we using to define "desirable"? yours? mine? can you claim to know what is best for the future of the species? I can&#39;t.

Diversity in no circumstances was a permanent phenomenon, as it was always a way to create a superior new organism to equal the vacuum in power.

I think you&#39;re trying to see it in terms of straight lines where none exists. genetic evolution is a constant and almost entirely random process. it&#39;s not a case of simple trial -> error -> trial -> success. environmental factors are also changing along with genomes, sometimes at a much faster rate.

I don&#39;t think there is any righteous justification of the destruction of the human races(miscegenation.)

the current human races, you mean? new ones will continue to evolve, converge and diverge as they have done for 2 million years. some will die out entirely and others will be absorbed. again, to my mind it&#39;s a big mistake to try imposing linear rules of logic on processes to which they can&#39;t be applied.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@Mar 9 2005, 03:57 AM
From the biological studies I have read, is a phenomena that occurs when a dominant force takes control and less dominant forces must become more diverse to increase the chance of the introduction of a trait that will cancel out the dominant force.

yeah I understand what you&#39;re saying, but I&#39;m pointing out that it&#39;s not that straightforward. a species that evolves to dominate its environment will continue to diversify genetically - it&#39;s simply that the dominant strain has already maximized its own biological advantages, thus any diverse strains are unlikely to be more successful (in fact 99%+ will be less successful and disappear within a few generations). the diversification of other species in the same environment becomes more visible, in relative terms, not because they are evolving more rapidly or more prolifically but simply because they continue to propagate more successful strains - or if they don&#39;t, they die out. the process is random though, it&#39;s not as if each species has a set timescale or ratio of evolution. often species will become extinct, or successful, for reasons unrelated to their genetic constitution.

The ethical side of selective breeding is also important, but I am sure we can agree on a few general traits (tall stature, intelligence, mesomorphism, etc.) The rest can simply be called "details" which will need to be agreed upon by a majority at a later point.

this still sounds pretty dangerous to me. what you&#39;re proposing is a eugenic program, which would appear to contradict your promotion of greatest possible diversity.

What I had meant on miscegenation before is that the current evolutionary tendencies (of the main subspecies, and in turn later the infraspecies that will result from local specialization) should be promoted. I believe that this will be a positive move for our species(-s) by continuing human evolution.

understood, but I&#39;d reiterate that no-one currently has the information or ability to decide for everyone else what traits are desirable. for one thing, it would require the ability to predict every detail of the future hundreds of thousands of years in advance. for another thing, even if someone COULD do that, do we agree that they would have the RIGHT to do so? personally, I&#39;d say hell no.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX+Mar 7 2005, 10:15 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ChimeraTX &#064; Mar 7 2005, 10:15 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-ORCABOMBER@Mar 7 2005, 12:22 PM
Dude. Don&#39;t you "ever" quit. I mean, debates are all cool and that. But some people actually have &#39;lives&#39;. It isn&#39;t a dishonour to drop a subject y&#39;know.

*Will remember to quote this to you at the age of 70*

[post=288946]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m not going to let people spread lies. The other subject was essentially over, but he made another one. He must reap what he has sown. If you don&#39;t like my opinions then don&#39;t read them.

[post=289019]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
You don&#39;t quite get it, I was talking about "in general" and anyway, by all means try to convince every Mutt on this Earth we&#39;re genetically inferior, there&#39;s plenty more of us where that is concerned. *Logs on to exoticnudemutts.com*

In case you aren&#39;t aware. My BSc (to be) is in Genetics/Microbiology, so I have an interest in what the average Joe takes on genetics and on little critters that invade people&#39;s biology.

That said, you Americans do love your debates. God knows what would happen if there was something that was actually worth arguing about (oh wait, you went to war anyway).

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Orcabomber, why are you arguing with a White Nationalist? The man is entitled to his opinions, as much as you might disagree with them.

 

[Dr Rock]

orcabomber does have a point though. I&#39;m a total mongrel (mostly celtic and slavic) and as far as I know I&#39;m not genetically inferior in any noticeable respect.

 

[jonb]

Dr Rock -- Funny you should mention that. Diabetes mellitus is a case of the environment changing too rapidly for genes to catch up.

ORCABOMBER -- Just remember that anagrams for "George W Bush and Tony Blair" include "The boring, sly duo began war." and "Gun hobby greets oil and war?"

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by Dr. Dilznick@Mar 9 2005, 01:55 PM
Orcabomber, why are you arguing with a White Nationalist? The man is entitled to his opinions, as much as you might disagree with them.

[post=289482]Quoted post[/post]​

Wait, is he white? I wont assume. Secondly. I&#39;m not arguing the issue (heck JonB&#39;s far too good). I&#39;m arguing about arguing the issue&#33; -_-

An argument or a debate is usually to change someone&#39;s views, but the wills here are far too strong, so it&#39;s unlikely to happen. Yes, I made my personal belief, and yes, there are people who would have a party if me and "my kind" were wiped off the face of the earth.

Ironically, if you agree with blowing up buildings, then you&#39;re a terrorist, but if you want to "remove" people, it&#39;s a valid opinion.

 

[13788]

Driveway: Oh goody...an evolution debate....anyone know any rabid creationists we could invite to this party?

There seems to be an agreement that there are undeniably morphological differences between human populations, eg: caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid. I would be hesitant, and would argue ferociously against someone who wanted to term these different groups "subspecies".

Considering that the genetic codes of Humans and Chimpanzees are (what is it, 98, 99%?) identical to suggest that the minuscule amount of variation that exists between Woody Allen and Shaquille O&#39;Neal amounts to a wholly seperate taxonomical classification seems...gratuitous.

As for the future of human evoluton...we have succesfully managed to stop evolving in the Darwinian sense, now the only aspect of humans that is evolving is our culture. Cultural evolution is Lamarkian in nature.

I say we are not evolving because we are no longer subject to the forces of natural selection. There is nothing that eats us, we don&#39;t need to be resistant to diseases because we have medicins (yes, there are "superbugs" appearing which are resistant to our drugs. The impact of these lifeforms, thus far, is negligable) We do not need to be stronger, or faster, or smarter to get our food because our food is waiting for us at Wal-Mart. (If you shop there...which you shouldn&#39;t) Though I am speaking from a first world perspective. It holds true for the third world as well.


Our culture on the other hand, is evolving nearly exponentially. Lamark theorized that learned or developed traits may be passed down. (A giraffe stretches its neck trying to reach food, therefore its offspring have longer necks.) Lamarck was wrong about nature, but right on the money when it comes to culture because that which is learned stays learned.

I do not beleive that the whole of humanity will eventually coalesce into a unified "whole" with one language, currency, government, and "colour". We are too good at fearing that which is different. Ignorant people are not going to willingly walk away from what they know, even if it can be shown that something else is better. We are going to continue to accelerate our general level of knowledge and technology until we run into an immovable object...possibly the speed of light. Me, i&#39;m strapping on to enjoy the ride.


Have I said anything new? i don&#39;t think so. Do I care? No, I have a big penis and a macintosh. Evolution has got me where i want to be.

 

[Dr. Dilznick]

Originally posted by ORCABOMBER@Mar 10 2005, 02:42 AM
Wait, is he white? I wont assume.

[post=289724]Quoted post[/post]​

I didn&#39;t assume anything. See post #17.