Human evolution kicks into high gear

[GabonX]

*foams at the mouth*

I didn't get past the misquoting of Dr. Gould. I don't want to deal with whatever is after it...

Please explain. If he was misquoted it falls upon you to show that this is the case, because as of now there is no reason to think that this is the case.

Rather it looks like you are rejecting science because of your ideology, an act which the Christian right is highly criticized for by the left..

I suppose Gould might be a little over your head, which is kinda sad, since he was an excellent communicator. Stephen Gould was one of the main developers of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which is an evolutionary model that addresses the hitch and go phenomenon that many evolutionary trends exhibit. There is often long periods of relative stasis ("relative" being the key word for this discussion), the equilibrium, followed by bursts of rapid evolutionary change, the punctuation. This theory is diametrically opposed to the concept of gradualism, which proposes that evolutionary change occurs slowly over time, which is a common view held by non-scientists and scientists alike. Gould was a paleontologist, and he knew his stuff about evolution.

The quote from Gould is from this interview. Let's compare that to a quote from his book on Punctuated Equilibrium.

Reading through this interview, it's clear that Gould is an intelligent and well informed individual. Unfortunately, he holds contradictory views. Gould claims that man is done evolving in a physical sense, and that all variation among different groups is the result of Lamarckian cultural inheritance. He also claims that if a species exists over a wide enough area, subspecies will develop.

If you have a species that lives over a wide area, it's going to diversify into regional groups called subspecies. I value that in human society, and I hope we don't go to a model of universal maximal efficiency and only one way to do everything. In fact, ultimately that doesn't work, because of punctuated equilibrium and the nature of environmental change. If you do put your eggs in one basket, that basket's going to eventually collapse. And diversity gives you resiliency against catastrophe.

The entire mechanics of change is so different in cultural versus natural systems. In cultural systems change is Lamarckian -- acquired characteristics can be inherited. Whatever we learn or invent in one generation we teach directly to the next generation. That gives cultural change a powerful driving force.

That's why the speed of cultural change works at orders of magnitude greater than anything possible with natural selection. And why natural selection has almost become irrelevant in human evolution. There's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain.

He claims that if enough individuals of a gives species exist over a wide enough geographic area they will evolve into subspecies but he refuses to accept that this would apply to humans. Instead he claims that differences in groups of people is the result of a kind of Lamarckian cultural inheritance.

The truth is that his ideas regarding cultural inheritance are true. What Gould fails to acknowledge is that over a long enough period, a given culture can influence the biological characteristics of given group, this being a potential example:

The researchers point to China’s Mandarin system, a method of screening individuals for positions as tax collectors and other government administrators. For nearly 2,000 years, starting in A.D. 141, the sons of a broad cross section of Chinese society, including peasants and tradesmen, took the equivalent of standardized tests. “Those who did well on them would get a good job in the civil service and oftentimes had multiple wives, while the other sons remained in a rice field,” Moyzis says. “Probably for thousands of years in some cultures, certain kinds of intellectual ability may have been tied to reproductive success.”

It is plain to see that there is physical variation among different groups, not all of which can be explained by culture. Skin color for example is attributed to adaptation to different geographic regions, with darker skinned people predominantly having come from places where there is more exposure to sunlight.

In addition, not all variation is visible in a physical sense and their are a great deal of examples of this available in this article and elsewhere..

The debate is over

[Snorri1234]

The quote isn't really relevant to the article itself. It was included to set the tone in the introduction.

The ironic thing is that you guys are acting as though the article was in support of his claim (which he did make) when in actuality the article goes on to give a variety of testimonies which show that humans have developed in different ways in different regions to address the unique challenges presented by their circumstances.

Not only do we realise full well that the article isn't in support of his claim, but it's obvious that his quote didn't claim what you think it did.

[PLAYER57832]

Still getting manhandled in these scientific arguments, I see? Don't worry, maybe your religion will get one right someday

How are science and religion mutually exclusive?

Oh I get it. All religious people must be dumb, because if we weren't, it would put shades of gray into your black and white worldview.

Anyway, on topic, I think a good point was made about the increasing interconnectedness of human culture producing mutations at a faster rate. Whether this is true or not, it's foolish to think that humans are done evolving, or evolving at a slower rate. There have been greater changes to our lifestyle in the past several millennia than in the rest of human history (easier access to food/shelter, increasing amounts of stimuli, etc.) and it does not seem to be stopping. However, I have a hard time believing that Hawks is the first to promote these ideas.

What he describes is not so much evolution as covolution. That is, its like you had a soup that began to separate, then now the spoon is stirring the pot around and mixing it all up. (yeah, I know, not a good analogy, but I can't think of a better one right now).

No one yet really understands how characteristics influence genetic reproduction. (thank heavans!). Much of the changes have to do with society changes and not genetics. Changes in phenotype don't necessarily mean genotype changes and genotype changes are not necessarily passed on to progeny.

Genetics are more likely to come into play in regards to chemicals (which, it can be argued are slowly killing off some susceptible people, etc.). HOWEVER, any such process will move either very, very, very, very slowly OR will occur after most of humanity is killed off by some catastrophe.

[GabonX]

The quote isn't really relevant to the article itself. It was included to set the tone in the introduction.

The ironic thing is that you guys are acting as though the article was in support of his claim (which he did make) when in actuality the article goes on to give a variety of testimonies which show that humans have developed in different ways in different regions to address the unique challenges presented by their circumstances.

Not only do we realise full well that the article isn't in support of his claim, but it's obvious that his quote didn't claim what you think it did.

Well I did read the interview where he said it, and I did put the quote in context.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on what it is that you think he meant.

Granted, this whole tangent on Gould is a red herring tossed by Neotony to avoid discussing the content of the article, but I'm curious as to how I, or the article, may have misrepresented his views...

[AAFitz]

Genetics are more likely to come into play in regards to chemicals (which, it can be argued are slowly killing off some susceptible people, etc.). HOWEVER, any such process will move either very, very, very, very slowly OR will occur after most of humanity is killed off by some catastrophe.

I do wonder why a catastrophe would do anything except kill off other species though, and why it would force new evolution. Humans struggle every day on some front or another, and arguably have suffered anything as catostrophic that can be imagined on an individual level. What mechanism would allow a rapid change to a species just because all of that species were struggling?

Im not questioning that its possible, or that its happened, but why would an entire species have to suffer to see the evolution. The long term seems to make more sense, and when catastrophes happen, it would make sense that it would seem to be massive changes, because there would be fewer of a population reproducing, so changes would get amplified and would happen quicker on a broad scale...or is this what actually happens?

[Frigidus]

Genetics are more likely to come into play in regards to chemicals (which, it can be argued are slowly killing off some susceptible people, etc.). HOWEVER, any such process will move either very, very, very, very slowly OR will occur after most of humanity is killed off by some catastrophe.

I do wonder why a catastrophe would do anything except kill off other species though, and why it would force new evolution. Humans struggle every day on some front or another, and arguably have suffered anything as catostrophic that can be imagined on an individual level. What mechanism would allow a rapid change to a species just because all of that species were struggling?

Im not questioning that its possible, or that its happened, but why would an entire species have to suffer to see the evolution. The long term seems to make more sense, and when catastrophes happen, it would make sense that it would seem to be massive changes, because there would be fewer of a population reproducing, so changes would get amplified and would happen quicker on a broad scale...or is this what actually happens?

Yes, it only shows up in the long term. In the short term any catastrophe would involve a species losing a portion of its population. Indeed, the only way you would see evolution occurring at a rapid rate would be if a rather large part of the population were killed off, as those surviving would have a larger segment with traits beneficial to their survival given the new environment in which they find themselves. Even then, "rapid" is rather subjective, as we would still be talking about hundreds of generations (and honestly, even that is probably a low estimate) before you would see any change.

[Neoteny]

The quote isn't really relevant to the article itself. It was included to set the tone in the introduction.

This is my point. It might be a red herring, but it isn't intentional. The quote is being misused to support the tone, and I don't think it's appropriate.

The ironic thing is that you guys are acting as though the article was in support of his claim (which he did make) when in actuality the article goes on to give a variety of testimonies which show that humans have developed in different ways in different regions to address the unique challenges presented by their circumstances.

Gould is not the focus of this article as some here seem think he is. Rather it is about the collective work of a number of scientists, most proportionally anthropologists..

Like I said, I told you I'm not interested in your article, particularly since you just want to use it to support your racism. I got my point about Gould across, and I'm satisfied with it. I've already told you evolution in humans is still occurring and this is not a groundbreaking discovery.I'll address your racism in the other thread.

[GabonX]

You can call it what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are biological differences among the different groups of man. They have resulted from populations being isolated for tens of thousands of years with little interaction from outside communities. These groups adapted to meet the specific challenges that their surroundings AND cultures presented. Your ideology is so rigid that anyone who acknowledges this is dismissed as being racist regardless of whether or not the argument entails racial supremacy (mine doesn't).

For the record, you didn't make any point about Gould at all. You simply stated that his quote was misused without explaining how this was the case. Under scrutiny of the quote in the original context, it turns out that it was not in fact misused. Making arrogant and unsubstantiated claims does not amount to having a point.

For the record this article comes from MSNBC which is not what I would call a bastion of racist ideology...

[Neoteny]

You can call it what you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there are biological differences among the different groups of man. They have resulted from populations being isolated for tens of thousands of years with little interaction from outside communities. These groups adapted to meet the specific challenges that their surroundings AND cultures presented. Your ideology is so rigid that anyone who acknowledges this is dismissed as being racist regardless of whether or not the argument entails racial supremacy (mine doesn't).

For the record, you didn't make any point about Gould at all. You simply stated that his quote was misused without explaining how this was the case. Under scrutiny of the quote in the original context, it turns out that it was not in fact misused. Making arrogant and unsubstantiated claims does not amount to having a point.

For the record this article comes from MSNBC which is not what I would call a bastion of racist ideology...

You are so fucking dense it's incredible. My "rigid ideology" encompasses what you've said in the first paragraph, but also includes the fact that the differences are basically negligible.

For the record, I made the point that Gould would not endorse his statements being used in the manner they are, and you are just ignoring that.

I don't care about the source. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Don't be childish.

[GabonX]

The assertion that the differences are negligible is unsubstantiated and potentially damaging. It stands in the way of arriving to real world solutions to real world problems regarding a range of issues. What may work best in one place for one group may not work in all circumstances..

Regardless of whether or not Gould would endorse his statements being used in a particular way, he did make them. Do you think that the Judge who you quote in your signature would endorse the way you are using his words? Does it matter? (no it does not).

This idea you seem to be implying, that because Gould would not approve of his theories being portrayed in a context which would refute them they should not be used, is laughable. Tell me, does this apply to all scientists or only the ones you like? What about politicians??

P.S. You don't speak for Gould

[Neoteny]

The assertion that the differences are negligible is unsubstantiated and potentially damaging. It stands in the way of arriving to real world solutions to real world problems regarding a range of issues. What may work best in one place for one group may not work in all circumstances..

Your rhetoric is nearly as empty as your mind. Even if they were unsubstantiated, they would be far less dangerous than the racist nature of your opinions.

Regardless of whether or not Gould would endorse his statements being used in a particular way, he did make them. Do you think that the Judge who you quote in your signature would endorse the way you are using his words? Does it matter? (no it does not).

I'm not using this guy's words to substantiate claims that denigrate entire populations of people. I'm using it to criticize what he did and how he did it. Quite a difference, really.

This idea you seem to be implying, that because Gould would not approve of his theories being portrayed in a context which would refute them they should not be used, is laughable. Tell me, does this apply to all scientists or only the ones you like? What about politicians??

P.S. You don't speak for Gould

What about politicians? Ironically, I'm not that big of a fan of Gould. Not that you would know, or care, why. As a critic, I'm well aware of what his general views were, and the fact is that they are being misrepresented. This is what I take issue with, not the goal for which the are being misrepresented. Come on now, it's not that difficult.

[thegreekdog]

P.S. You don't speak for Gould

No one speaks for Gould. Gould speaks for Himself or through his son, Jesus (pronounced Hay-soos).

[Neoteny]

I chuckled.

[GabonX]

All right Neotony, if you want to demonstrate once and for all that I'm an ill informed racist that uses sources which twist the intentions of scientists, I'm going to give you the opportunity to do so by asking you two questions..


What specifically have I said which demonstrates that I'm racist? I've said numerous times that I don't believe in racial supremacy but you keep jibing in about how terribly racist I am.


How specifically has Gould's quote been misused? What do you think Gould meant when he said “There have been no biological changes. Everything we’ve called culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.”?

You've alternated between saying that he's been "misrepresented" to saying that "he wouldn't approve" of how he was quoted to claiming that he was outright "misquoted". You've ignored my post which examines his views in the original context. Perhaps you would like to explain what exactly it is you are talking about, instead of making unverifiable and abstract claims..

[thegreekdog]

I chuckled.

Thanks be to Gould. Amen.

I'm going to hell.

[PLAYER57832]

Genetics are more likely to come into play in regards to chemicals (which, it can be argued are slowly killing off some susceptible people, etc.). HOWEVER, any such process will move either very, very, very, very slowly OR will occur after most of humanity is killed off by some catastrophe.

I do wonder why a catastrophe would do anything except kill off other species though, and why it would force new evolution. Humans struggle every day on some front or another, and arguably have suffered anything as catostrophic that can be imagined on an individual level. What mechanism would allow a rapid change to a species just because all of that species were struggling?


Im not questioning that its possible, or that its happened, but why would an entire species have to suffer to see the evolution. The long term seems to make more sense, and when catastrophes happen, it would make sense that it would seem to be massive changes, because there would be fewer of a population reproducing, so changes would get amplified and would happen quicker on a broad scale...or is this what actually happens?

You have to look at what evolution is. The old idea of "competition of the fittest" is only partially true. It is only really true when conditions are fairly steady. When conditions change, then the very thing that might have led to best survival might be the downfall of the species later. A modern example (not necessarily fully true, but close enough for an illustration) would be that the big buck normally out-competes its scrawny cousins and gets more does. However, come a drought and maybe the scrawny buck needs less food and winds up surving while the bigger bucks die off. Was that really "survival of the fittest" or a case of change?

When there is a major catastrophe, its not just that a lot of things die, conditions are often pretty harsh for some time afterward. Species continue to struggle. Any little advantage might make the difference between one individual reproducing or reproducing with more success. The practical effect is that these changes are more likely to be passed on to progeny quickly. Those that don't get the advantages simply die.

Then, on top of this, when things "settle down" a bit, there is an "open field" and reduced competition. In that case, more progeny will plain survive, meaning more phenotypes and genotypes. Some genotypes will be concentrated in certain regions partly by chance and, perhaps, partly because conditions in that area differ slightly. Once the species have spread out, ecological "niches" are filled and "statis" achieved, then "regular" competition comes back. (but keep in mind that "mini" disasters happen all the time, so this happens constantly on a small scale).

Looking at human beings as evolutionary subjects is tricky, because we understand so little, including very particularly just what "better" ought to mean. I mean HItler's idea of a perfect race is not exactly mine! (and I don't think yours, either .. .. ) . Human beings might or might not be going through evolution right now, but it is not an area where we can make much scientific headway right now... and I am not sure we should even really try.

[jonesthecurl]

I chuckled.

Thanks be to Gould. Amen.

I'm going to hell.

Neitsche was right. Gould is dead.

[thegreekdog]

I chuckled.

Thanks be to Gould. Amen.

I'm going to hell.

Neitsche was right. Gould is dead.

You may want to tell the Brits if Gould is really dead.

They keep asking Gould to save the queen.

[AAFitz]

Sometimes I think I would rather live anywhere else, at any other time in history.

Then I remember the Internet.

I know a lot of people that re-enact the Rev war. It was a simple time, and it did not involve as many issues. Life was much simpler:

If you got a bacterial infection you died.
If you ran out of food you died
If you ran out of fire wood you died.
If you got attacked by the british you died...assuming you didnt run when you heard them banging the drums as they marched down the street.
If you didnt have enough water you died.
If you wanted to call someone, you wrote it down and sent it via horseback.
If you wanted light, you lit a candle.
If you wanted to get somewhere, you probably walked.
If you wanted to marry the man of your dreams...often too bad!
If you wanted kids, have a lot, because a lot of them died.

Everything seems confusing, now, there seem to be more problems, more issues....but that isnt the case. The fact is, we just know more about the issues, and have lives so much easier, that we are simply afraid to lose them more.

In the eighties we worried about nuclear war.
In the 70's we had no gas or money.
In the 60's we worried about communism and nuclear war. ( I just watched the history channels presentation of JFK. 3 Shots that changed America. They showed only footage shown at the time. Those people lived in mortal fear that the world would end as they know it. They lived on the brink of nuclear war with Russia, and its not even subtle...they simply lived in fear.

We have it better than we ever did. Sure, we now realize that the earth is more fragile than we expected, that there are ten ways it can end tomorrow, and that the world is a tough place full of evil, hate, destruction, and war. Luckilly, some of us get the opportunity to realize there is more. There is beauty, love, friendship and heroism as there always has been.

The only real difference today, is not that there are more problems...but that we simply know about those problems. Perhaps that makes you less happy, and maybe it really was easier knowing you would likely die before age 70, but Ill take the future any day. It is simply amazing to see what people can make...sure its to bad to see what they destroy, but given the choice, ill go into the future, instead of the past, every time.

[john9blue]

I was referring more to the fact that scoring well on standardized math tests could get you money and women.

But thanks for putting it in perspective.



EDIT: Hey, 777 posts. Maybe the future is brighter than I thought.

[Foxglove]

Sometimes I think I would rather live anywhere else, at any other time in history.

Then I remember the Internet.

Everything seems confusing, now, there seem to be more problems, more issues....but that isnt the case. The fact is, we just know more about the issues, and have lives so much easier, that we are simply afraid to lose them more.

...

We have it better than we ever did. Sure, we now realize that the earth is more fragile than we expected, that there are ten ways it can end tomorrow, and that the world is a tough place full of evil, hate, destruction, and war. Luckilly, some of us get the opportunity to realize there is more. There is beauty, love, friendship and heroism as there always has been.

The only real difference today, is not that there are more problems...but that we simply know about those problems. Perhaps that makes you less happy, and maybe it really was easier knowing you would likely die before age 70, but Ill take the future any day. It is simply amazing to see what people can make...sure its to bad to see what they destroy, but given the choice, ill go into the future, instead of the past, every time.

Well said!