How can you believe in evolution but no social darwinism

[sanabas]

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.

This makes it sound like you think that when that migration happened, all the migrants were his descendants.

 

[Archbob]

This makes it sound like you think that when that migration happened, all the migrants were his descendants.

Yeah, because thats what genetic evidence suggests.

 

[El_Machinae]

Just the descendants of his Y-chromosome. Lots of his peers had descendants in that group.

So, FAL, should I be treating you the way that Y-Adam probably treated his non-related peers? You still haven't answered that.

 

[Archbob]

Just the descendants of his Y-chromosome. Lots of his peers had descendants in that group.

So, FAL, should I be treating you the way that Y-Adam probably treated his non-related peers? You still haven't answered that.

The actual trace in lineages stops with him. The evidence actually suggests that all males in that group actually had his specific Y-Chromosome. Each lineage's Y-Chromosome is unique. They might have decendents in the group, but those guys obviously didn't survive very long. The thing is that from Australia to America, no trace of other Y-Chromosome lineages could be found, so there a decent possibility it was only his descendents.

Y-Adam probably didn't treat his non-related peers any different than two strangers treat each other today. Whats the point of your question?

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Yes, it is more likely that he had more male children than was necessary to become Y-Adam, but that does not mean that such a thing can simply be assumed; "probably" is not "certainly". All we can state with certainty is that he had at least two male children; all else is blind speculation, and no sound basis for anything at all.

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.

Even seven hundred generations is still enough time to render the actions of any one individual candidate for Y-Adam largely irrelevant beyond a certain point. As I said, we have no particular reason to assume that any given lottery winner bought five tickets rather than just one.

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.

But you are not merely suggesting that he was supporting many children in a row, but at once, a far more difficult proposition, especially given that Y-Adam seems to be, in your conception, a self-interested womaniser with little very limited interest in the off-spring which his gallivanting actually produces.

Also there were probably other males in the group that didn't reproduce nearly as much as him but hunted also.

And why would they share the proceeds of their hunting and gathering? Gatherers in simple societies, especially, tend to consumer their food as they gather (they gather/ed far more food than they hunt/ed), and they're unlikely to put up with some revolting little sprog who keeps following them around and eating their finds just because his dad is the local Big Man. Aside from anything else, it would be in direct contradiction of the Social Darwinism you deem to be natural; if anything, they'd strangle the little bugger and dump his body in the undergrowth, lower the competition for their own off-spring.

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).

...Thereby blowing your Social Darwinism out of the water by reflecting the irrational hereditary privilege leant by social hierarchies.

The actual trace in lineages stops with him. The evidence actually suggests that all males in that group actually had his specific Y-Chromosome. Each lineage's Y-Chromosome is unique. They might have decendents in the group, but those guys obviously didn't survive very long. The thing is that from Australia to America, no trace of other Y-Chromosome lineages could be found, so there a decent possibility it was only his descendents.

Even that is less than certain. There could have been several such lineages, all sharing an even earlier Y-Adam. All we know is that each of these lines of direct male descent terminated at some point, and, while this was presumably relatively early, it doesn't suggest that our contemporary Y-Adam's Y-chromosome was ubiquitous at so early a point.

 

[sanabas]

Yeah, because thats what genetic evidence suggests.

It is? Got a link? There's no reason why it should be the case, depending on the size of that migration, I'd expect a lot of them to be direct ancestors of most non-Africans alive today. Which would just mean y-Adam would need some descendants in that migration, not that the entire migration were his descendants. I'm interested to read more.


Also curious, do you use the same argument for mitochondrial-Eve? That she must have been a 'superior' woman who had lots of men and lots of kids?

I find it hard to figure out what you mean by 'superior' in most of this thread.

 

[Archbob]

Yes, it is more likely that he had more male children than was necessary to become Y-Adam, but that does not mean that such a thing can simply be assumed; "probably" is not "certainly". All we can state with certainty is that he had at least two male children; all else is blind speculation, and no sound basis for anything at all.

When you don't have enough evidence or will never have enough evidence because we can't build a time machine. Its logical to assume the most likely scenario, especially if it is 10 times more likely than the other one. Scientists do this all the time, in every field, from cosmology to anthropology. Why? Because its logical. Its actually not blind speculation. Its a theory based on the best evidence we have available. If we didn't do that, half our theories wouldn't exist, including theories about the big bang and origins or the universe. Its all based on assumptions of the most likely scenario.

But you are not merely suggesting that he was supporting many children in a row, but at once, a far more difficult proposition, especially given that Y-Adam seems to be, in your conception, a self-interested womaniser with little very limited interest in the off-spring which his gallivanting actually produces.


And why would they share the proceeds of their hunting and gathering? Gatherers in simple societies, especially, tend to consumer their food as they gather (they gather/ed far more food than they hunt/ed), and they're unlikely to put up with some revolting little sprog who keeps following them around and eating their finds just because his dad is the local Big Man. Aside from anything else, it would be in direct contradiction of the Social Darwinism you deem to be natural; if anything, they'd strangle the little bugger and dump his body in the undergrowth, lower the competition for their own off-spring.

No, actually, hunters of wild game and even gathers tend to bring it back to camp than consume it all while they are hunting. Especially if they gather a lot. No, they'd realize that if they try to kill other kids, other people would try to kill their kids, so laws and societies formed out of mutual fear of destruction. That however, does in no one eliminate, competition within the group within a reasonable level.

...Thereby blowing your Social Darwinism out of the water by reflecting the irrational hereditary privilege leant by social hierarchies.

Its actually doesn't. And naturally its not irrational. Adam's kids are more likely than other kids to have the "superior" genetics of his father. So by favoring them, you are supercharging what is more likely already superior genes. It also proves that societies stratify in whatever ways they could and its natural human instinct to do this rather than be perfectly equal.

 

[Archbob]

It is? Got a link? There's no reason why it should be the case, depending on the size of that migration, I'd expect a lot of them to be direct ancestors of most non-Africans alive today. Which would just mean y-Adam would need some descendants in that migration, not that the entire migration were his descendants. I'm interested to read more.


Also curious, do you use the same argument for mitochondrial-Eve? That she must have been a 'superior' woman who had lots of men and lots of kids?

I find it hard to figure out what you mean by 'superior' in most of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

Try that series, its actually a fairly interesting scientific video.

"Superior" simply means traits that give him an advantage over other individuals.

 

[El_Machinae]

The thing is that from Australia to America, no trace of other Y-Chromosome lineages could be found, so there a decent possibility it was only his descendents.

My grandson through my daughter is my descendant. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have my Y-chromosome, he's still my descendant. In fact, there're decent odds that he has my X-chromosome.

So, no, it's not only his descendants.

Y-Adam probably didn't treat his non-related peers any different than two strangers treat each other today. Whats the point of your question?

Well, you seem to be suggesting that he's worth emulating. As to how he treated his peers, that's not something you're qualified to tell me.

 

[sanabas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4

Try that series, its actually a fairly interesting scientific video.

Don't have the bandwidth to download that much video, unfortunately. If you can point me at some text I'll be happy to read it.

"Superior" simply means traits that give him an advantage over other individuals.

Advantage in what whay though? I can think of lots of people who I'd consider 'superior' in that they have advantageous traits, but it doesn't mean they'll have more surviving kids. When I think of the sort of people in today's western society who seem to breed more, I think of people I'd probably label as inferior.

 

[Archbob]

My grandson through my daughter is my descendant. It doesn't matter that he doesn't have my Y-chromosome, he's still my descendant. In fact, there're decent odds that he has my X-chromosome.

So, no, it's not only his descendants.

Your suggesting that there were only female descendents of other lineages in that group. The likelihood of that is pretty low. If there were other male lineages, its fairly likely that one of them would have survived, but none of them have.

Well, you seem to be suggesting that he's worth emulating. As to how he treated his peers, that's not something you're qualified to tell me.

He had traits that would be worth emulating 60,000 years ago, doesn't mean you'd still emulate them today.

I only told you how he treated his peers because you asked.

Advantage in what whay though? I can think of lots of people who I'd consider 'superior' in that they have advantageous traits, but it doesn't mean they'll have more surviving kids. When I think of the sort of people in today's western society who seem to breed more, I think of people I'd probably label as inferior.

Thats because of society's rules today in western society, We have rules that prohibit certain natural instincts. Today's western society is almost entirely a man-made construct, it doesn't reflect out natural tendencies. Also, its because we invented condoms and other forms of birth control that didn't exist for most of human history.

Also people who tend to breed more today in our society also tend to have much more mortality rates across all age levels, so thats is sort of nature's counterbalance to our man-made society.

 

[sanabas]

Your suggesting that there were only female descendents of other lineages in that group. The likelihood of that is pretty low. If there were other male lineages, its fairly likely that one of them would have survived, but none of them have.

I think you're estimating the probabilities badly. All that's required is that there's not a direct male line, not that there's only female descendants.

You could run the maths for a simplified version, see what happens. Assume there's 10 guys, with y-1, y-2, ..., y-10. Assume they, and any of their descendant males, average 2.2 kids each. Make up the numbers, say 10% 0 kids, 20% 1 kid, 30% 2 kids, 25% 3 kids, 10% 4 kids, 5% 5 kids, and all kids are 50% chance of being male. Run it for 10 generations, at which point you'll average ~26 males. The expected value for each of y-1, y-2, etc will be 2.6. But the probability of a particular y disappearing inside 10 generations will be over 28%. Drop the growth rate below 10% per generation, and the probability of a particular y dying out grows. You can also work out the probability of a y dying out if it has 2, 3, whatever people in generation 1.

 

[El_Machinae]

I never asked how he treated his peers. I asked if you're suggesting that I behave in a way similar to how he treated non-family members.

Finally, all we know know about the Y-chromosome is that it's either lucky or good at highjacking other chromosomes to reproduce. Selfish gene, remember?

 

[Traitorfish]

When you don't have enough evidence or will never have enough evidence because we can't build a time machine. Its logical to assume the most likely scenario, especially if it is 10 times more likely than the other one. Scientists do this all the time, in every field, from cosmology to anthropology. Why? Because its logical. Its actually not blind speculation. Its a theory based on the best evidence we have available. If we didn't do that, half our theories wouldn't exist, including theories about the big bang and origins or the universe. Its all based on assumptions of the most likely scenario.

Assuming the "most likely scenario" is foolish, especially when, as in this case, the scenario in question is of very limited relevance in deciding the eventual outcome. The fact is, Y-Adam did not need to have any more than two children, and that his eventual assumption of the "title" was reliant on far more than his own actions, and so there is almost nothing of value that can be drawn from his existence. He is, in this context, little more than a curiosity.

No, actually, hunters of wild game and even gathers tend to bring it back to camp than consume it all while they are hunting. Especially if they gather a lot.

That is why I specified "simple" societies; the more settled and complex a society grows, the less direct the distribution of resources.

No, they'd realize that if they try to kill other kids, other people would try to kill their kids, so laws and societies formed out of mutual fear of destruction. That however, does in no one eliminate, competition within the group within a reasonable level.

Only if people now that they kill other kids. Your model would suggest that humans would make a habit of murdering each other's children and, indeed, each other whenever they could get away with it. Mutual respect is non-existent in a society dependent on mutual fear for survival.

Its actually doesn't. And naturally its not irrational. Adam's kids are more likely than other kids to have the "superior" genetics of his father. So by favoring them, you are supercharging what is more likely already superior genes.

But why is the "supercharging" of "superior" individuals in the interest of the majority? What do I care if Hercules Jr. is "superior" to me? He's not going to pass on my genes, is he?

It also proves that societies stratify in whatever ways they could and its natural human instinct to do this rather than be perfectly equal.

Only if one can demonstrate that people naturally subjugate themselves to the offspring of their genetic "betters", which you have yet to do.

 

[El_Machinae]

In fact, the non-murdering of other kids likely occurred first. You don't need cognitive reasons for this behaviour, because it can be selected for as a group dynamic. Once the instinct occurs to protect other kids, then teamwork can continue to be selected for.

 

[Newbunkle]

So social darwinist knuckle-dragging leads to incest, inbreeding, and a small gene pool? No wonder we evolved beyond it!

 

[Archbob]

Assuming the "most likely scenario" is foolish, especially when, as in this case, the scenario in question is of very limited relevance in deciding the eventual outcome. The fact is, Y-Adam did not need to have any more than two children, and that his eventual assumption of the "title" was reliant on far more than his own actions, and so there is almost nothing of value that can be drawn from his existence. He is, in this context, little more than a curiosity.

Yeah, just like assuming the "big bang" actually happened is foolish because even though evidence points to it being the most likely thing to happen, since we're not 100% sure. We shouldn't assume it. Many genecists would disagree with you on your interpretation of Y-Adam and most all would tell you he almost necessarily would have to have more than 2 kids. That is a near-impossibility. Much of science, and especially anthropology of pre-historic societies is based on the assumption of what is most likely to happen. If choice A is 99% likely to happen and choice B is 1% likely to happen, scientists are logically going to assume choice 1 and do subsequent work based on the assumption that choice A is true. Science is based just as much on logical deductions as factual evidence.

But why is the "supercharging" of "superior" individuals in the interest of the majority? What do I care if Hercules Jr. is "superior" to me? He's not going to pass on my genes, is he?

No, but supercharning "superior" individuals is good for the species as a whole. And also fear and subjugation would keep a rigid social structure in order.

Only if one can demonstrate that people naturally subjugate themselves to the offspring of their genetic "betters", which you have yet to do.

Dominance and submission is very apparent throughout most species, not just humans. We are not somehow above this rule. When a group of boys get together, there is usually 1 or 2 that become the "alpha" males and the rest of the group follows generally whatever they say. Most humans are sheep that follow with a few who have the personality to lead. That should be pretty apparent in today's society.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, I should endeavour to dominate you?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

evolution's logical explanation for races is that the white man is on top, because they developed better technoology an colonized other race's continents

but if you believe Genesis, we all come from Adam and Eve, and therefore all the same, when people stop belaiving in God, instead of there being "a brotherhood of man", people will focus on racial differences.

 

[Ajidica]

evolution's logical explanation for races is that the white man is on top, because they developed better technoology an colonized other race's continents

No, that derives from a really bad understanding of evolution. ie: Social Darwinism.

but if you believe Genesis, we all come from Adam and Eve, and therefore all the same, when people stop belaiving in God, instead of there being "a brotherhood of man", people will focus on racial differences.

Odd, given the number of xenophobes that are also religous.