How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[Whiskey_Lord]

Adam in all liklihood did not treat his peers at that badly because there just wasn't that much material stuff to fight over. But he did get first dibs on the meat from a hunt and the women. Its really not all that different from the society we have today where the rich and powerful get first dibs on everything. We've basically devolved into a soceity that our shortcomings predicted we would.

Fixed.

 

[Archbob]

Well, you see them as shortcomings, I see them as simple natural inclinations. Neither moral or immoral(well I would see it that way, if I didn't believe in a God).

 

[Traitorfish]

I do know what I'm talking about. DNA tracing does actually say all men originated from one man. You try to make it sound ridiculous. But Y-chromosonal evidence suggests just that. And if not one man, it suggest that all humans came from a very small group of men which got a disporptionate amount of women.

No, it does not. It suggests that all humans trace their direct male ancestry back to a single individual. All we can infer from that is that the hypothetical individual had at least two children and both were male, which is a piece of information so sparse as to mean nothing at all.

Just the fact that M-eve is much Older than Y-Adam support polygamy and the that humans have always been stratified in terms of rank and prominance and that these differences have always attributed to evolutionary success.

You have to face the facts and the implications, humans were never really egalitarian.

This is not a reasonable inference from the simple existence of a most recent common ancestor.

(Also, again, please stop going on about monogamy. As I have already said, I do not consider that to be innate to human society nor to be a moral obligation; my earlier misuse of the term "monogamy" to mean "sexual fidelity" was a mistake I have already addressed.)

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

The Y Chromosome is passed on identically from father to son. Sometimes there is a mutation along one of the billions of base pairs. That mutation will also be passed identically to all subsequent generations. Its actually a pretty good tracing. By tracing these mutations(which actually happen at a surprisingly normal rate), you can track lineages. There's only been a few thousand generations between us and this ancestor. Our descent is really not that ancient.

You're not getting me. Random fixation doesn't mean that Y-chr Adam was the source of all genetic information available to humans today. Plenty of other males lived alongside him who managed to pass their genes but not their Y chromosomes (because their descendants terminated the patrilineage with daughters).

 

[Archbob]

No, it does not. It suggests that all humans trace their direct male ancestry back to a single individual. All we can infer from that is that the hypothetical individual had at least two children and both were male, which is a piece of information so sparse as to mean nothing at all.

No, they actually need a large amount of children to ensure enough genetic variability for the survival of their line. 2 kids isn't going to cut it. He more likely had dozens of kids which had dozens more kids. If he's going to eventually father all the males on earth, in all liklihood, he's going to have to have a large amount of offspring himself. Have you actually read much research or watched documentaries on the subject?

This is not a reasonable inference from the simple existence of a most recent common ancestor.

Yeah, it actually is a logical inference. It implies, one man, many wives. The kind of thing that always happens in ancient societies that are stratified.

You're not getting me. Random fixation doesn't mean that Y-chr Adam was the source of all genetic information available to humans today. Plenty of other males lived alongside him who managed to pass their genes but not their Y chromosomes (because their decendants terminated the patrilineage with daughters).

Your suggesting that all other males at the time only had daughters. Do you realize how unlikely that is?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Well, yes. I'm still not quite following you. If there is such a thing as different races among the human specie, then it would be quite strange if the only differences were small differences in physical appearance.

My point is that those "races" people keep talking about have no genotypic foundation.

Your suggesting that all other males at the time only had daughters. Do you realize how unlikely that is?

Ah, no. I'm saying that the lines of the other males all terminated at daughters, not that they were terminated by daughters in one generation. Essentially, an unbroken male line of ancestry was not maintained in any of the descendants.

 

[Traitorfish]

No, they actually need a large amount of children to ensure enough genetic variability for the survival of their line. 2 kids isn't going to cut it. He more likely had dozens of kids which had dozens more kids.

Why? All we know is that he is the most recent universal male ancestor, and, while any given individual occupying such a position becomes more likely the more male children he had, that is not a necessity. All that needed to happen is for him to have at least two male children, and those two children themselves had at least one male child, and so on and so forth until it so happened that his direct male descendants comprised every living male. We don't even know when this happened, only that it did; Y-Adam is defined in terms of living humans, not any innate quality of the individual himself. He wasn't Y-Adam until a long time after his own death, and it is quite likely that Y-Adam has been a number of different people at different times throughout the history of the species.

 

[stuge]

Your suggesting that all other males at the time only had daughters. Do you realize how unlikely that is?

No. It could have happened over an undefined period of time, over multiple generations. Too slow.

What are you even arguing for anymore? What does the assumed nature of ancient societies have to do with darwinism?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Y-Adam is defined in terms of living humans, not any innate quality of the individual himself. He wasn't Y-Adam until a long time after his own death, and it is quite likely that Y-Adam has been a number of different people at different times throughout the history of the species.

These sentences are very important.

 

[Archbob]

Why? All we know is that he is the most recent universal male ancestor, and, while any given individual occupying such a position becomes more likely the more male children he had, that is not a necessity. All that needed to happen is for him to have at least two male children, and those two children themselves had at least one male child, and so on and so forth until it so happened that his direct male descendants comprised every living male.

Your think of extremely unlikely scenarios, instead of the most logical one. To avoid his line from being completely wiped out in some famine or disaster, he most likely had to have a vast number of children, not one or two. Not saying that its absolutely impossible but your assumption is high unlikely.

We don't even know when this happened, only that it did; Y-Adam is defined in terms of living humans, not any innate quality of the individual himself. He wasn't Y-Adam until a long time after his own death, and it is quite likely that Y-Adam has been a number of different people at different times throughout the history of the species.

We actually have dates thats to genetic dating. Most of it points to 60-65 kya.

and it is quite likely that Y-Adam has been a number of different people at different times throughout the history of the species.

But the most recent one was 60-65Kya, and he's the direct one that all males can trace back to. The evidence points to him and not someone else at a later date as after that date, there is variability in the Y that suggest that not all humans shared a common ancestor after that time.

What are you even arguing for anymore? What does the assumed nature of ancient societies have to do with darwinism?

It hasn't been about social darwinism for quite some time, its been about evolution and were humans biologically pre-programmed to be socially stratified or not. Our ancestry has a lot of baring on this.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your think of extremely unlikely scenarios, instead of the most logical one. To avoid his line from being completely wiped out in some famine or disaster, he most likely had to have a vast number of children, not one or two. Not saying that its absolutely impossible but your assumption is high unlikely.

The likelihood of an individual becoming Y-Adam increases with the number of male offspring, yes, but that is not the dominant factor- the process of becoming Y-Adam lasts millennia, after all- nor is it necessarily true that he had any more than the minimum possible number of male children. That something is "highly unlikely"- if that is indeed the case- does not mean that it is any less feasible than the alternatives, merely that it is less likely.

We actually have dates thats to genetic dating. Most of it points to 60-65 kya.

That pertains to the period in which Y-Adam lived, not in which he became Y-Adam.

But the most recent one was 60-65Kya, and he's the direct one that all males can trace back to. The evidence points to him and not someone else at a later date as after that date, there is variability in the Y that suggest that not all humans shared a common ancestor after that time.

Now, yes. Go back fifty thousand years (say), and this may no longer be true, because alternative lines of male-descent may not yet have become extinct. The simple fact is that we don't know when this became the case; hypothetically, there could be some isolated group as-yet-undiscovered by civilisation that does not share in this particular Adam's lineage, and thus pushes the title back further to one of Adam's own ancestors.
Y-chromosome Adam is defined as the most recent common direct male ancestor of all living humans, which means that he is defined in terms of contemporary lineage, and not in terms of any personal quality. As such, we cannot from that infer anything about him beyond the absolute minimum necessary for him to become Y-Adam, and that is limited to the fact that he had too male children who were themselves able to have male children.

 

[carlosMM]

No, I think your the one thats confused about what evolution really implies, or maybe you don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your moral beliefs. Evolution selects those traits that are most likely to be successful in reproducing.

False.

There is no guarantee that each individual that it select will be successful at doing so.

False - indicivudals are not pre-selected because of their traits.

A trait that tends to gain a lot of power in humans is more successful in general than a trait that does not gain power.

You still fail to back up that claim.

Therefore evolution and natural selection is going to pick that trait. That trait is in essence 'superior' to a trait that does not begat power.

False.

PLEASE learn how evolution works before you continue to post.

Your nitpicking at my post while ignoring the overall point.

The overall points are that you have a wrong understanding of how evolution works, and that you fail to back up your claims.

Power and reproductive success are strongly positively correlated and it is a casual relationship, its not a coincidence.

Do you mean causal?
Pelase provide proof.

You'd have to be blind to say otherwise. Power makes it more likely that your genes will be passed on.

Repetition doesn't make it any more true - and you also fail to show how powerful people produce kids that are genetically predispoistioned to become powerful

It is not equals, but its pretty darn close. Looks at Kings, emperor, nobles. They generally slept with more women and sired more kids than your average peasant.

And how many of them still are kings?

OOPS!

Humans are actively selecting every day.

as individuals, not as a legal system.

I don't agree that a government should put more pressure for them to do so. But to promote that humans are equal or even close to being equal on the individual level is also ludicris.

Repeating your strawman doesn#t make it any truer.

Government should not go either way, it should not force them to select what is "genetically superior" but it also should not be encouraging integration either.

Integration? integrating whom how?

You're just a racist, however you try to hide it, because now you seem to suggest that selection should be based on race, a that implies you think certain races superior to others.

In this matter, government should stay out and let things take their natural course. Same thing with hereditary wealth and such. You should not be trying to promote a class of elites nor should you be trying to promote equality. You should just let things play out as they are.

If you had any understanding of human evolution and the development of society you'd argue that we should actively attempt to reduce differences in society. Because cooperative behavior actually is very successful.

 

[El_Machinae]

Adam in all liklihood did not treat his peers at that badly because there just wasn't that much material stuff to fight over. But he did get first dibs on the meat from a hunt and the women. Its really not all that different from the society we have today where the rich and powerful get first dibs on everything. We've basically evolved into a soceity that nature predicted we would.

Naw, not at all. He only treated his family with any dignity. Chances are pretty strong that he was killed by a non-relative, and there's no reason to believe that he wasn't a brutal rapist whenever he could be.

And the fact that his Y-chromosome bounced around through history says nothing of the rest of his traits. All we know is that his traits allowed him to reproduce successfully with at least one surviving male child.

 

[Archbob]

carlosMM, traitorfish actually bring up some valid points(I disagree with him but he actually tries to bring scientific evidence to the table).

Your just saying "no" to my claims without having any backing proof of your own.

A trait that tends to gain a lot of power in humans is more successful in general than a trait that does not gain power.

Ghenghis Khan has 16 million descendents, the average mongol from the 1200s has nowhere near that many.

Power and reproductive success are strongly positively correlated and it is a casual relationship, its not a coincidence.

This is absolutely true in human history. Most emperors have dozens if not hundreds of wives and many royal prince suns plus many other uncounted ones.

A trait that tends to gain a lot of power in humans is more successful in general than a trait that does not gain power.

In history powerful people have more wives and offspring that your regular person. This is something you refuse to believe although it is true. Emperors have dozens of wives and cocubines, how many do you have?

You're just a racist, however you try to hide it, because now you seem to suggest that selection should be based on race, a that implies you think certain races superior to others.

No, I said several times, it can only be taken on an account in the individual level. What I meant by integration is integration of genetic traits not race.

If you had any understanding of human evolution and the development of society you'd argue that we should actively attempt to reduce differences in society. Because cooperative behavior actually is very successful.

So is competitive behavior. The times where science and technology has advanced the most in our history is during times of war because you need new inventions to destroy the enemy.

I don't agree that a government should put more pressure for them to do so. But to promote that humans are equal or even close to being equal on the individual level is also ludicris.

Are you really going to sit there and argue that your somehow equal to LeBron James in physical prowess or equal to Albert Einstein in intellectual prowess. I doubt anyone is going to take you seriously.

 

[Arakhor]

Nietzsche would be proud of you, FAL, seeing as you're evoking shades of ubermensch right now.

 

[Archbob]

Now on the traitorfish's last post:

The likelihood of an individual becoming Y-Adam increases with the number of male offspring, yes, but that is not the dominant factor- the process of becoming Y-Adam lasts millennia, after all- nor is it necessarily true that he had any more than the minimum possible number of male children. That something is "highly unlikely"- if that is indeed the case- does not mean that it is any less feasible than the alternatives, merely that it is less likely.

I would actually say that is the dominating factor. If he only had 1 or 2 male descendents, the likelihood of him ever becoming Y-Adam is extremely unlikely. His male descedants basically have to successfully out compete and out-dominate every other male descendent of the others in the short span of few thousand years at most(evidence suggests that humanity left Africa shortly afterwards). This makes it highly improbable that he had only 1 or 2 male descendents.

It is feasible, but to examine it from a logical and scientific perspective, it is much more logical to deduce that he had many, and not a few offspring.

@Arakhor -- Well, if you take God out of the equation, then I see it that humanity does not actually have a goal. It simply exists. It is not the pinnacle of evolution(because there is no such thing), but just a step on the evolutionary ladder.

 

[Bill3000]

Nietzsche would be proud of you, FAL, seeing as you're evoking shades of ubermensch right now.

No, he wouldn't.

 

[Arakhor]

@Arakhor -- Well, if you take God out of the equation, then I see it that humanity does not actually have a goal. It simply exists. It is not the pinnacle of evolution(because there is no such thing), but just a step on the evolutionary ladder.

On a secular basis, I completely agree. There is no reason beyond exceptionalism to assume that we are the apex of evolution.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would actually say that is the dominating factor. If he only had 1 or 2 male descendents, the likelihood of him ever becoming Y-Adam is extremely unlikely. His male descedants basically have to successfully out compete and out-dominate every other male descendent of the others in the short span of few thousand years at most(evidence suggests that humanity left Africa shortly afterwards). This makes it highly improbable that he had only 1 or 2 male descendents.

It is feasible, but to examine it from a logical and scientific perspective, it is much more logical to deduce that he had many, and not a few offspring.

But the likelihood of him ever becoming Y-Adam under is necessarily incredibly small- the process by which he becomes Y-Adam takes at the very least several hundred generations, and quite probably several thousand. The statistical difference created by having ten male children as opposed to just two is that between (say) one in ten million and five in ten million; a 500% increase, yes, but still overwhelmingly unlikely. After all, buying five lottery tickets rather than one increases your chances of winning fivefold, but most winners only ever purchased the one.

Besides, if one man has twenty kids, how does he feed and protect them all? It doesn't strike me as a wise move from the standpoint of natural selection; there's more to passing on one's genes than merely producing sprogs, after all

 

[Archbob]

But the likelihood of him ever becoming Y-Adam under is necessarily incredibly small- the process by which he becomes Y-Adam takes at the very least several hundred generations, and quite probably several thousand. The statistical difference created by having ten male children as opposed to just two is that between (say) one in ten million and five in ten million; a 500% increase, yes, but still overwhelmingly unlikely. After all, buying five lottery tickets rather than one increases your chances of winning fivefold, but most winners only ever purchased the one.

Besides, if one man has twenty kids, how does he feed and protect them all? It doesn't strike me as a wise move from the standpoint of natural selection; there's more to passing on one's genes than merely producing sprogs, after all

But the reality of it is he did and based on that reality, it is far more likely that he had lots of kids than just 1 or 2.

Based on evidence the time period between this guy and the migration out of africa was a mere 10,000 years or so, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. That alone makes it more likely that he had to have a head start, basically lots of offspring. I would say between his time and the migration, it'd be 700 generations, and probably less. There just wasn't enough time for thousands of generations to pass.


On the second point, he probably had these kids over an extended period of time and back then, boys started to hunt at a very young age. Larger groups during that time are actually shown to be more able to survive, so having more kids wasn't a bad thing. Also there were probably other males in the group that didn't reproduce nearly as much as him but hunted also. Also, as sons of the highest ranking male, they most likely ate before the other kids(or at least their father got the best pickings and handed it down to his preferred kids).

Well, I should probably finish up work before I debate on this anymore.