Proof of human evolution?

Leifmk said:
On the other hand, there's been quite a bit of theorizing about why people have the capacity to live so long beyond child-having and child-raising age in the first place. It can easily be construed that there's some advantage to the group (the natural human social unit is not a nuclear family but more like a small tribe or whatever) having some members around who are not themselves producing children but are still capable of helping out -- and also some who are old enough to have learned a lot of stuff and remember things that only happen rarely (as in "we had this kind of freak weather once when I was young and this is how we survived...") Of course you don't need everyone to live to age 70 or beyond with a clear mind for this, just a few.
Click to expand...

Assuming, of course, that in the depths of prehistory those human tribes could already make each other realise that they had seen such weather/other in the past too ;)

In my view it is very unlikely that such a condenced, conclusive view can be correct in this matter. It is very highly unlikely that humans exist as they do regarding such issues (eg the age you mentioned) in such a direct link to the ability to have offspring. I also suspect that the majority of organisms on the earth do not have that ability anyway (eg virtually all of the types of ants in any colony).
 
It's not really 'proof of human evolution', but I'll grant that it's within the gist of successful human evolution. Now, that term is so vague that it's nearly useless. You need everyone to just 'agree to agree' to move the conversation forwards. Other recent changes that are 'evolutionary successes' (imo) would be our ability to digest milk as adults and the explosion of blue eyes. Milk digestion is 'obvious', whereas blue eyes are mostly a variant of 'sexual selection', I think.

I might disagree with not breeding away from dementia, if healthy grandparents help rear offspring, which I think they do. But, it'd be such a minor factor. I betcha there's nearly no ability to measure the difference in breeding rates of daughters whose mums got sick or didn't as they got older. I mean, there's belief that homosexuality is retained due to the 'gay men make great uncles', so it's not aggressively bred out. That said, Huntington's Disease shows us that late-striking diseases can't really overcomes our urge to breed.
 
El_Machinae said:
It's not really 'proof of human evolution', but I'll grant that it's within the gist of successful human evolution. Now, that term is so vague that it's nearly useless. You need everyone to just 'agree to agree' to move the conversation forwards. Other recent changes that are 'evolutionary successes' (imo) would be our ability to digest milk as adults and the explosion of blue eyes. Milk digestion is 'obvious', whereas blue eyes are mostly a variant of 'sexual selection', I think.

I might disagree with not breeding away from dementia, if healthy grandparents help rear offspring, which I think they do. But, it'd be such a minor factor. I betcha there's nearly no ability to measure the difference in breeding rates of daughters whose mums got sick or didn't as they got older. I mean, there's belief that homosexuality is retained due to the 'gay men make great uncles', so it's not aggressively bred out. That said, Huntington's Disease shows us that late-striking diseases can't really overcomes our urge to breed.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what to reply there, but...surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman El Machinae? 1
 
Kyriakos said:
Ok, do you regard it to be logical that homosexuality still exists because
Click to expand...
So, no, I wasn't joking. It's basically common knowledge amongst those who engage in the 'gay rights' debates.
http://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html

As it stands, it's just a model that can generate hypotheses worth testing. It's by no means 'proven', but it's an idea that can eventually generate a theory. Now, if you reread my initial post, it might make more sense.
 
El_Machinae said:
So, no, I wasn't joking. It's basically common knowledge amongst those who engage in the 'gay rights' debates.
http://www.livescience.com/6106-gay-uncles-pass-genes.html

As it stands, it's just a model that can generate hypotheses worth testing. It's by no means 'proven', but it's an idea that can eventually generate a theory. Now, if you reread my initial post, it might make more sense.
Click to expand...

You may not have been joking, but the god of the internet seems to have humor if one goes by the automaticaly abbreviated form of your link there.

And no need to be cryptic, cause if you alluded to that view as one which you are not supportive of, would it not follow quite easily that such a mode of allusion was what prompted me to require if you were speaking in jest? ;)
 
El_Machinae said:
I might disagree with not breeding away from dementia, if healthy grandparents help rear offspring, which I think they do. But, it'd be such a minor factor. I betcha there's nearly no ability to measure the difference in breeding rates of daughters whose mums got sick or didn't as they got older. I mean, there's belief that homosexuality is retained due to the 'gay men make great uncles', so it's not aggressively bred out. That said, Huntington's Disease shows us that late-striking diseases can't really overcomes our urge to breed.
Click to expand...

My hunch would be that by the time grandfather is old enough to develop dementia, grandson is usually old enough to take care of himself. Modelling the age at which people have their first child at about 25 - of course, in most pre-modern societies, it was a great deal younger, especially for women - this means that most people's grandchildren are born when they're 50. So they reach maturity when their grandfather is about 68, which is on the low threshold of 'old' when it comes to encountering most 'old man' diseases. Perhaps what is more important is that the grandfather will not become decrepit while his grandson still needs a lot of attention, since that would run the risk of his son having to split his resources between the two.
 
Kyriakos said:
You may not have been joking, but the god of the internet seems to have humor if one goes by the automaticaly abbreviated form of your link there.

And no need to be cryptic, cause if you alluded to that view as one which you are not supportive of, would it not follow quite easily that such a mode of allusion was what prompted me to require if you were speaking in jest? ;)
Click to expand...
Ha! Too funny.
And, it's not that I 'don't' support it. It's just that it's not a robustly tested model yet. Well, more accurately, it's not a well-tested theory, but that's semantics.
Flying Pig said:
My hunch would be that by the time grandfather is old enough to develop dementia, grandson is usually old enough to take care of himself. Modelling the age at which people have their first child at about 25 - of course, in most pre-modern societies, it was a great deal younger, especially for women - this means that most people's grandchildren are born when they're 50. So they reach maturity when their grandfather is about 68, which is on the low threshold of 'old' when it comes to encountering most 'old man' diseases. Perhaps what is more important is that the grandfather will not become decrepit while his grandson still needs a lot of attention, since that would run the risk of his son having to split his resources between the two.
Click to expand...
Yeah, looking at it personally, my grandparents didn't need support until I was an adult. That said, they did become sick when I was still a 'parent' with kids at home. As well, my dad's grandma became sick when I was a child.

That said, my grandparents (and my kids' grandparents) certainly help with the rearing of the children (me and mine)
 
That doesn't include the also quite sizable group who think evolution has occurred, but it was due to the acts of some apparently imaginary creature.

"I've done material about evolution before. In Britain and Australia it barely raises an eyebrow. it's just worth a chuckle. But in America it is quite contentious to do comedy about evolution. It gets a gasp. It is equivalent to doing material about fisting anywhere else." Tim Minchin
 
Akka said:
I'm speechless that there is more than one third of the total US population who believe that species were created as they are at the beginning :what:

Wow. Just wow.
Click to expand...

The thirst for knowledge is as a cup. Some are satisfied with a thimble. Some are like a bucket. Some are like a bottomless hole. Having what you or I might consider a "fuller grasp" on the "nature of things", unless they have a job as some kind of scientist, generally doesn't affect their everyday lives, how they provide for families, or how much "other" contribution they make to a great country.
 
This isn't just a matter of not understanding something which requires an advanced degree. It is basic elementary school science.

How great can their meaningful contribution to society be if they continue to mislead their own children with their own prejudices? How great can a country be where such a large segment of its population refuse to join the last century, much less this one, in so many ways?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 
Do you have any of those fancy graphs to illustrate who pays the bills around here and who takes all of the handouts?

edit: my jimmies... not my jimmies. must. resist.
 
Formaldehyde said:
How great can their meaningful contribution to society be if they continue to mislead their own children with their own prejudices? How great can a country be where such a large segment of its population refuse to join the last century, much less this one, in so many ways?
Click to expand...

Everyone contributes, really. Well, nearly everyone. Yeah, it's hard to get scientists out of some cultures, but we still need lawyers, accountants, middle management, and plumbers.

Nearly no parent can answer the classical child question of "why is the sky blue?", but the vast majority of them are still contributing.
 
Adjuvant said:
Do you have any of those fancy graphs to illustrate who pays the bills around here and who takes all of the handouts?

edit: my jimmies... not my jimmies. must. resist.
Click to expand...
What makes you think those who paid attention in school are typically taking the handouts, instead of the other way around?

El_Machinae said:
Everyone contributes, really. Well, nearly everyone. Yeah, it's hard to get scientists out of some cultures, but we still need lawyers, accountants, middle management, and plumbers.
Click to expand...
And I'm obviously not claiming that those who did pay attention during elementary school science classes usually aren't contributing no matter what they happen to do. I have no idea how you ever got that impression.

I'm questioning how much real contribution to society the rest are providing by deliberately sabotaging the education of their own children, as well as everybody else they possibly can.
 
What is the literacy rate of public schools? If people are just being told something, they may tend to forget it. Is seems that we train kids to not believe, which is basic human nature and then expect them to be mechanical robots in society which tend to brake down and in need of repair?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TerrisH
Out of the Portals, a Never Ending Story.
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
14K
J.A.M.
J.A.M.
thecrazyscot
What would make the wonders wonderful?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Minor Annoyance
M
W
A Doctor, a Mutation and a Potential Cure for AIDS
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
MagisterCultuum
MagisterCultuum
FearlessLeader2
Evolution: Science or Dogma?
5 6 7
Replies
132
Views
5K
CrazyScientist
CrazyScientist
Back
Top Bottom