Evolution - the differences in man

[LastRites]

........i am going to say that i think morality is biological, not cultural.
Its quite possible that people have their behaviour along with characteristics coded into their dna...can biology change due to cultural influences? I believe it can. Just like climate can play a role. But here comes the trick question...is brain size strictly biological or is it biological due to culture? (since there are differences between people....and Im not talking about superiority of one over the other, nor I dont want the bell curve mentioned here either)

[tousunis]

I thought this was going to be about how black people have more similiarities to apes than white people do.

[Oz.]

Its quite possible that people have their behaviour along with characteristics coded into their dna...can biology change due to cultural influences? I believe it can. Just like climate can play a role. But here comes the trick question...is brain size strictly biological or is it biological due to culture? (since there are differences between people....and Im not talking about superiority of one over the other, nor I dont want the bell curve mentioned here either)
Ignoring the whole point of this I'll share a little trivia... Einstein's brain was 1270 ml. The average human brain is about 1500 ml. At least in terms of intelligence, size isn't everything.

[Dutch Raven]

Don't know what it's called in English, but who you are and how you look is determind by an internal factors (DNA and stuff) and the exterior factors (enviroment, diet, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

All that shit.
(it's often hard to translate specific technical words)

[Boothead]

Don't know what it's called in English, but who you are and how you look is determind by an internal factors (DNA and stuff) and the exterior factors (enviroment, diet, etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

All that shit.
(it's often hard to translate specific technical words)

The whole Metal Gear Solid story was based around these things...

Just my 2 cents.

[Dutch Raven]

Still don't care for that game, sorry. ;)

[Doc]

Ignoring the whole point of this I'll share a little trivia... Einstein's brain was 1270 ml. The average human brain is about 1500 ml. At least in terms of intelligence, size isn't everything.

You're quite off with the cranial capacity there. Here is some data from the Intelligence journal:

Blacks - 1267 ml, IQ 85.
Whites - 1347 ml, IQ 100.
Asians - 1360 ml, IQ 106.

There are differences in the average brain size and these match observed differences in IQ. So, Einstein was obviously black.

[LastRites]

I dont want you guys arguing numbers. Just acknowledge that different people from different parts of the world have a different skull size than someone else from another part of the world...and that its genetic. Its not about how big of a skull do the blacks have or the whites, etc.

[Doc]

I dont want you guys arguing numbers. Just acknowledge that different people from different parts of the world have a different skull size than someone else from another part of the world...and that its genetic. Its not about how big of a skull do the blacks have or the whites, etc.

You didn't like the asian part eh. :tongue:

[LastRites]

You didn't like the asian part eh. :tongue:
hahaha.
But really I would like to get back to topic.


Is behaviour including morals:

1) biological
2) cultural
3) biological due to cultural influence (is it even possible?)

[Doc]

hahaha.
But really I would like to get back to topic.


Is behaviour including morals:

1) biological
2) cultural
3) biological due to cultural influence (is it even possible?)

Its a very nice question. I've given this some deeper thought. I would say that ethical behaviour is a survival tool and has to do with survival of the human species........but there are different types of survival: individual, group, national etc. I think altruism is the initiator.........that is biological, but there is an interaction with culture.......there is a feedback. Ethical systems evolve in response to the drive of our species to survive (but are they still evolving?). The feedback comes from knowledge of pitfalls, types of behaviour that have undermined previous societies, tradition etc.

[PUNISHER]

I doubt that brain size has anything at all to do with intelligence. I've heard somewhere that we use a very small percentage of our brains total capability anyways. I bet if we learned to use our brains completely we could probably bend spoons and make shit float.

Sure different races have different sized brains on average but we all have different sized... everything.

[PUNISHER]

Its a very nice question. I would say that ethical behaviour is a survival tool and has to do with survival of the human species........but there are different types of survival: individual, group, national etc. I think altruism is the initiator.........that is biological, but there is an interaction with culture.......there is a feedback. Ethical systems evolve in response to the drive of our species to survive (but are they still evolving?). The feedback comes from knowledge of pitfalls, types of behaviour that have undermined previous societies, tradition etc.
That makes me wonder. The Arab races seems to be the most aggressive and hostile on the planet. Does this make them more primitive? How big would there brains be on avg.? I personnally don't think they're primitive in intellectual sense.

[Doc]

That makes me wonder. The Arab races seems to be the most aggressive and hostile on the planet. Does this make them more primitive? How big would there brains be on avg.? I personnally don't think they're primitive in intellectual sense.

I would say their aggression puts them in danger. Perhaps on an individual level, in nature, aggression can get you what you want.........but on a national level........that is not always the case.

[LastRites]

Its a very nice question. I've given this some deeper thought. I would say that ethical behaviour is a survival tool and has to do with survival of the human species........but there are different types of survival: individual, group, national etc. I think altruism is the initiator.........that is biological, but there is an interaction with culture.......there is a feedback. Ethical systems evolve in response to the drive of our species to survive (but are they still evolving?). The feedback comes from knowledge of pitfalls, types of behaviour that have undermined previous societies, tradition etc.
I believe that each group of people (meaning races) have their own drive to survivie. This survival would include behaviour, morals, etc. because we all know that survival of a group of people is not just about who can make a fire, kill an animal and breed. This survival needs feedback or direction in onther words...and that is something that culture (an invention of the people) does. Its a steering tool, giving direction and shaping the behaviour which then gets coded into our dna over years.

I dont know where to look for this now but I once read this awesome article. Its about a son and father who were split at birth. The father living here and the sone lived there with another family with different values, etc. 20 years later they were re-united...and the son's behaviour/thinking/reacting to situations was identical to his fathers even though he didnt learn any from him directly.

And I dont want to get into "what if you put this rich kid in a ghetto and raise him there"...not about such enviroments. Im talking about the molding of a group of people in general over thousands of years not individual cases. Individual cases will always differ and cannot be looked at/compared to a whole population.

[PUNISHER]

I would say their aggression puts them in danger. Perhaps on an individual level, in nature, aggression can get you what you want.........but on a national level........that is not always the case.
Well it seems to be the case for the U.S. thus far but the U.S. can always back itself up.

[grouchybastid]

hahaha.
But really I would like to get back to topic.


Is behaviour including morals:

1) biological
2) cultural
3) biological due to cultural influence (is it even possible?)

Yes. :smile:

Bottom line, human behavior is FAR too complex to attribute to any one factor.

[Doc]

Don't forget, we are biological organisms just like any other.

[grouchybastid]

Don't forget, we are biological organisms just like any other.

Absolutely. But being highly intelligent means that we have created behaviors that either a) counteract biological drives, or b) are not covered by biological drives.

[LastRites]

Absolutely. But being highly intelligent means that we have created behaviors that either a) counteract biological drives, or b) are not covered by biological drives.
And therefore makes different people different not just in a biological sense correct?

[Doc]

Absolutely. But being highly intelligent means that we have created behaviors that either a) counteract biological drives, or b) are not covered by biological drives.

Of course. However, many organisms exhibit altruistic behaviours.........even insects. Such behaviours help the group = group selection. It is the same for humans...........natural selection acts at different levels and our ethical systems help the group to survive. Here is a question............is the fundamental mechanism in action, biological?

[grouchybastid]

And therefore makes different people different not just in a biological sense correct?

Correct.

Of course. However, many organisms exhibit altruistic behaviours.........even insects. Such behaviours help the group = group selection. It is the same for humans...........natural selection acts at different levels and our ethical systems help the group to survive. Here is a question............is the fundamental mechanism in action, biological?

Maybe. There is a fair bit of debate, as far as I know, on the idea of altruism vs. selfishness being genetic in nature. I'm guessing you've read Dawkins...The Selfish Gene?

I should get my girlfriend to jump in on this one when I get home. She's a biologist (Ph. D. candidate) after all.

[Doc]

Correct.



Maybe. There is a fair bit of debate, as far as I know, on the idea of altruism vs. selfishness being genetic in nature. I'm guessing you've read Dawkins...The Selfish Gene?

I should get my girlfriend to jump in on this one when I get home. She's a biologist (Ph. D. candidate) after all.

Yup, I like Dawkins. And the more the merrier.

[Doc]

Well, i definitely think we are almost at the point where we will completely guide our own evolution. Bring it on.

[grouchybastid]

Well, i definitely think we are almost at the point where we will completely guide our own evolution. Bring it on.

Guide it, as in be able to stop/reverse the natural evolutionary changes? I'd be willing to say that we already have. Modern medicine has allowed for the survival and propagation of all sorts of genes that even 100 or so years ago would not have made it.

Hell, 100 years ago I likely wouldn't have survived childhood, I was a sickly little fuck. Now, I don't even catch cold.

[Dutch Raven]

Blacks - 1267 ml, IQ 85.
Whites - 1347 ml, IQ 100.
Asians - 1360 ml, IQ 106.

I wonder how this looks when you specify everything.
Blacks: are Northern Americans blacks? How about Indian people and Pakistanis?
Whites: East/South vs West/North European.
Asians: Japanese vs the rest.

[Acari Rotter]

I can attest that Koreans' skulls are shaped much differently than ours. Just put one of their helmets on and you'll see. It pinches your forehead and you could store a sandwich on the top of your head. The section they use for math and video games is abnormally large and the section for punctuality and trimming pubic hair is tiny, almost absent.

The relative IQs of different races is so close it doesn't matter. There are blacks out there with IQs of 150 and Asians whose pulse is higher than their IQ. Maybe all Asians have a genetic predisposition toward taking multiple choice tests. Give it a few generations and it could be true. The ones who fail tend to take themselves out of the gene pool. On the other hand, I would argue it's fucking stupid to kill yourself over an exam.

[Acari Rotter]

Is behaviour including morals:

1) biological
2) cultural
3) biological due to cultural influence (is it even possible?)

Here's the obvious answer: the people who give you your genes, your parents, also give you cultural influence. So the two are mashed together.

[RuneDK]

Don't worry - all discussions will be over when i present these overwhelming facts.

The "is my race more intelligent than the arabs?"-list goes as follows:

Asian
White
Eskimo
Indian
Black
North Korean
Aboriginal
Derka derka people

[Acari Rotter]

Don't worry - all discussions will be over when i present these overwhelming facts.

The "is my race more intelligent than the arabs?"-list goes as follows:

Asian
White
Eskimo
Indian
Black
North Korean
Aboriginal
Derka derka people

Seriously lay off the crack. Do you by any chance know where North Korea is? They're no dumber than any of their neighbours. Also, why would Inuit be smarter than other aboriginals? If you're joking about this list my apologies. Better safe than sorry.

[Doc]

Guide it, as in be able to stop/reverse the natural evolutionary changes? I'd be willing to say that we already have. Modern medicine has allowed for the survival and propagation of all sorts of genes that even 100 or so years ago would not have made it.

Hell, 100 years ago I likely wouldn't have survived childhood, I was a sickly little fuck. Now, I don't even catch cold.

No, guide as in re-engineer ourselves.

[Doc]

I wonder how this looks when you specify everything.
Blacks: are Northern Americans blacks? How about Indian people and Pakistanis?
Whites: East/South vs West/North European.
Asians: Japanese vs the rest.

Yeah, it was Africans, West Europeans, and anyone with slitty eyes.

[LastRites]

Here's the obvious answer: the people who give you your genes, your parents, also give you cultural influence. So the two are mashed together.
You call that an obvious answer? lol
Maybe you just arent thinking deep enough into the subject.
Why is Joe Blow angry all the time? Is it cultural because the enviroment he was brough up in...or is it biological meaning its in his dna to snap every 5 mins.
Now if its biological meaning dna... can culture influence the shaping of your dna over a period of time when speaking in terms of behaviour. (just using this as an example)

[Acari Rotter]

You call that an obvious answer? lol
Maybe you just arent thinking deep enough into the subject.
Why is Joe Blow angry all the time? Is it cultural because the enviroment he was brough up in...or is it biological meaning its in his dna to snap every 5 mins.
Now if its biological meaning dna... can culture influence the shaping of your dna over a period of time when speaking in terms of behaviour. (just using this as an example)


Well that's easy. Joe Blow is angry all the time because it's in his genes. When he was young, Joe Blow Sr was angry all the time, which Joe Blow Jr observed and later copied. Remember that Joe Blow Sr is responsible for half of Joe Blow Jr's genes. So it's a double delivery.

[grouchybastid]

No, guide as in re-engineer ourselves.

As in eugenics? Or genetic engineering? Or both? :smile: Either way, I'll agree that we're on the brink of those things coming to the forefront...and a huge-ass can of worms it'll be, too. Should be fun to watch.


You call that an obvious answer? lol
Maybe you just arent thinking deep enough into the subject.
Why is Joe Blow angry all the time? Is it cultural because the enviroment he was brough up in...or is it biological meaning its in his dna to snap every 5 mins.
Now if its biological meaning dna... can culture influence the shaping of your dna over a period of time when speaking in terms of behaviour. (just using this as an example)

I'll say again, it's too complex an issue to attribute to any one factor. Human behavior is a product of genetics, culture and environment, but I don't think any can be said to have a greater influence than any other.

[Dutch Raven]

I can attest that Koreans' skulls are shaped much differently than ours. Just put one of their helmets on and you'll see. It pinches your forehead and you could store a sandwich on the top of your head. The section they use for math and video games is abnormally large and the section for punctuality and trimming pubic hair is tiny, almost absent.

The relative IQs of different races is so close it doesn't matter. There are blacks out there with IQs of 150 and Asians whose pulse is higher than their IQ. Maybe all Asians have a genetic predisposition toward taking multiple choice tests. Give it a few generations and it could be true. The ones who fail tend to take themselves out of the gene pool. On the other hand, I would argue it's fucking stupid to kill yourself over an exam.

There were tribes in the south of Europe that bound of their heads to get the nice skullshape we Northern people have.

About the same as Japanese getting eyelid-corrections and negro's who bleach their skin.

[King of all Buffets]

You call that an obvious answer? lol
Maybe you just arent thinking deep enough into the subject.
Why is Joe Blow angry all the time? Is it cultural because the enviroment he was brough up in...or is it biological meaning its in his dna to snap every 5 mins.
Now if its biological meaning dna... can culture influence the shaping of your dna over a period of time when speaking in terms of behaviour. (just using this as an example)

I am of the school of though that it is Nature and Nurture combined. Someone may have a predisposition towards violence but grows up in a positive environment and is given the right tools to be able to control their temper. On the flip side their may be someone not predisposed to violence but grows up in a violent situation and learns the behavior as a way to deal with problems.

I guess what it boils down to is a complicatted set of variables that inform the whole person. I belive Culture can influence DNA over a millenia, all DNA is adaptive and will respond to environmental stimuli positve and negative.

[LastRites]

So if dna is adaptive and responds to factors such as culture is it safe to say that:
!) people who grow up among smart people will be smarter than those who grow up among the stupid
2) learned traits such as behaviour can be passed onto the next generation via dna not just by "tradition/customs"
3) such obvservation can and should be called 'evolution'

[Jimmy]

So if dna is adaptive and responds to factors such as culture is it safe to say that:
!) people who grow up among smart people will be smarter than those who grow up among the stupid
2) learned traits such as behaviour can be passed onto the next generation via dna not just by "tradition/customs"
3) such obvservation can and should be called 'evolution'


1) If I hung out with Albert Einstein all the time, I'm sure he could teach me a thing or two, but if I hang out with Johnny Retard, I really doubt I'll get any dumber. I'll just have higher self-esteem.

2) Learned traits canned be passed on. That's not evolution. See Jean Baptiste de Lamarck.

3) No.

[LastRites]

3) No.
How come? If its something that we learn and gets coded into our dna over a 500 year period...which then gets passed on to the next generation without them having to "learn it"....why not evolution?

[grouchybastid]

How come? If its something that we learn and gets coded into our dna over a 500 year period...which then gets passed on to the next generation without them having to "learn it"....why not evolution?

But it doesn't. Lamarck was already mentioned, read up on him. Learned behaviors cannot be inherited.

Look at it this way, if learned behaviors *could* be inherited, why aren't all human beings nowadays experts at hunting with a spear, or skinning an animal? These are behaviors that had been learned by all of our ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years.

[King of all Buffets]

So if dna is adaptive and responds to factors such as culture is it safe to say that:
1) people who grow up among smart people will be smarter than those who grow up among the stupid

I think in any positive situation a person is more able to reach there potential. A persons muscles grow when exercised, is it not possable that generations of people pushing their mental limits could be causing their brains to raise the bar so to speak.


2) learned traits such as behaviour can be passed onto the next generation via dna not just by "tradition/customs"

Maybe it could influence the DNA in a miniscule way each generation. Like I said I think its a combination of all factors. Im talking about a big arc.....thousands of years as opposed to generations,


3) such obvservation can and should be called 'evolution'

Evolution seems to infer t hat the growth is positive in nature, I think its more along the lines of adaptation rather then evolution.

[Jimmy]

How come? If its something that we learn and gets coded into our dna over a 500 year period...which then gets passed on to the next generation without them having to "learn it"....why not evolution?


Because of 1 and 2. 500 years isn't long enough for evolution to take place anyway.

You're looking at evolution in the wrong sense. Evolution is mostly an accident that turns out to be a good thing for an individual (can run faster), so that individual is more likely to have offspring (able to catch more prey and live longer than competing males). This gives his offspring this "accident" which makes it more common in the gene pool, and so on and so forth.

[LastRites]

But it doesn't. Lamarck was already mentioned, read up on him. Learned behaviors cannot be inherited.

Look at it this way, if learned behaviors *could* be inherited, why aren't all human beings nowadays experts at hunting with a spear, or skinning an animal? These are behaviors that had been learned by all of our ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years.
Isnt upright walking a behaviour that influenced our dna (bone structure)?
I should have made it a bit clearer...not leanred traits alone...but learned traits which mold our dna to become "natural" without them having to be learned again.

[LastRites]

Evolution seems to infer t hat the growth is positive in nature, I think its more along the lines of adaptation rather then evolution.
Ok...but if a person adapts to a certain (enviroment, custom, way of life) and lives this way for a number of years...eventually over a period of time this person is no longer learning to adapt...but evolved to fit it correctly.
Or am I wrong here?

[Jimmy]

Isnt upright walking a behaviour that influenced our dna (bone structure)?
I should have made it a bit clearer...not leanred traits alone...but learned traits which mold our dna to become "natural" without them having to be learned again.


I think you have it backwards again. It was probably a specimen with abnormal bone structure who was able to start walking upright. Biologists aren't sure why this trait dominant.

[Jimmy]

Ok...but if a person adapts to a certain (enviroment, custom, way of life) and lives this way for a number of years...eventually over a period of time this person is no longer learning to adapt...but evolved to fit it correctly.
Or am I wrong here?


You're wrong. They adapted. Their children would have to adapt too.

An example is someone who moves to a very cold place. They adapt by building homes that would keep them warm and hunting furry animals to use their fur to help keep themselves warm. Example... humans. Humans are one of the most adaptable animals on earth.

Something that has evolved to live in this cold area already has the tools they need to survive from the get-go. Example... a polar bear.

[Jimmy]

Haha, I used "cold area" in that example because I'm sitting in the library and its fucking freezing.

[grouchybastid]

Isnt upright walking a behaviour that influenced our dna (bone structure)?
I should have made it a bit clearer...not leanred traits alone...but learned traits which mold our dna to become "natural" without them having to be learned again.

Ok...but if a person adapts to a certain (enviroment, custom, way of life) and lives this way for a number of years...eventually over a period of time this person is no longer learning to adapt...but evolved to fit it correctly.
Or am I wrong here?

Sorry man, but you are wrong. Jimmy mostly covered it already. Your example of upright walking isn't a learned trait, it's a mutation that turned out to be beneficial and so was "selected" in an evolutionary sense. The first proto-humans that were walking upright didn't learn how to do it, they were able to. See the difference?

[chaosdiva]

Welcome to WSN university!!!:smile:

[Ihateyou]

You're wrong. They adapted. Their children would have to adapt too.

An example is someone who moves to a very cold place. They adapt by building homes that would keep them warm and hunting furry animals to use their fur to help keep themselves warm. Example... humans. Humans are one of the most adaptable animals on earth.

Something that has evolved to live in this cold area already has the tools they need to survive from the get-go. Example... a polar bear.
True, but what about the Inuit? There have been scientific studies performed that show that their skin is more resistant to cold than yours and mine. By performing infrared analysis of the facial surface, it's been shown that they are consistently warmer than you and I would be. Now they have the tools and skills to adapt to the environment without the need for evolutionary change, but yet there it is. Even natives born today have this trait. So according to your theory, if natives continue to exist in polar regions, unhindered with interbreeding, is it logical for us to expect their dermal tissue to be genetically modified to be more like ours since they've adapted their living environments to be less harsh than their ancestors? How many generations before we see a change? I imagine that the time periods required to notice any kind of observable genetic evolution or deevolution would be in the millions of years somewhat making the discussion moot.

[grouchybastid]

True, but what about the Inuit? There have been scientific studies performed that show that their skin is more resistant to cold than yours and mine. By performing infrared analysis of the facial surface, it's been shown that they are consistently warmer than you and I would be. Now they have the tools and skills to adapt to the environment without the need for evolutionary change, but yet there it is. Even natives born today have this trait. So according to your theory, if natives continue to exist in polar regions, unhindered with interbreeding, is it logical for us to expect their dermal tissue to be genetically modified to be more like ours since they've adapted their living environments to be less harsh than their ancestors? How many generations before we see a change? I imagine that the time periods required to notice any kind of observable genetic evolution or deevolution would be in the millions of years somewhat making the discussion moot.

Hmm. Cite please.

However, just off the cuff....the ancestors of the Inuit arrived in North America some 11,000 years ago, and were likely living in the Siberian steppes for many thousands before that.

[weknowhowtolive]

Hmm. Cite please.

However, just off the cuff....the ancestors of the Inuit arrived in North America some 11,000 years ago, and were likely living in the Siberian steppes for many thousands before that.How is that possible, i thought the world was only 6000 years old.

[LastRites]

Jimmy, grouchybastid... I know what you guys are saying. Dont get me wrong...I am questioning the possibilities or possible truths.

If it was a mutation as you suggest its still evolution. And I dont want to start the "evolution" subject from the times of the proto-man but earlier. As early as the ancestor from which proto-humans and other spiecies branched off from.
So...if its a mutation aka evolution...what was the reason for this if not learning to walk upright (food, speed, etc) We know it didnt happen over night and we do know that there would be no reason for this mutation if this spiecies didnt learn/try. A branch of this common ancestor decided to do this therefore resulting in the mutation of this branch which eventually evolved into the modern man.
Now the word "selected" has been mentioned. I dont believe that evolution or natural selection is always a fluke...its possible that its a learned trait which helps them survive. Its passed onto the group, generation to generation.
Take the Inuits for example...did they just adapt to colder climats as Jimmy suggests...or did they evolve to live in them without problems?...or does adapting equal evolving if considered over a number of years?

Nobody here would last if we put ourselves in the shoes of the Inuits...eating their food, etc. But if we have offspring and pass on this adapted way of life....our generations will be just fine. So can we still consider this evolution of some kind?

[King of all Buffets]

True, but what about the Inuit? There have been scientific studies performed that show that their skin is more resistant to cold than yours and mine. By performing infrared analysis of the facial surface, it's been shown that they are consistently warmer than you and I would be. Now they have the tools and skills to adapt to the environment without the need for evolutionary change, but yet there it is. Even natives born today have this trait. So according to your theory, if natives continue to exist in polar regions, unhindered with interbreeding, is it logical for us to expect their dermal tissue to be genetically modified to be more like ours since they've adapted their living environments to be less harsh than their ancestors? How many generations before we see a change? I imagine that the time periods required to notice any kind of observable genetic evolution or deevolution would be in the millions of years somewhat making the discussion moot.

I watched a show about a month ago which showcased a professional swimmer that spent decades swimming in artic waters...He is actually able now to raise his internal temp by 1 degree which is pretty significant...when he does it, the freezing cold water feels like little more then a cool bath.

[LastRites]

I watched a show about a month ago which showcased a professional swimmer that spent decades swimming in artic waters...He is actually able now to raise his internal temp by 1 degree which is pretty significant...when he does it, the freezing cold water feels like little more then a cool bath.
So if a group of people did this over a # of thousands/millions of years. Their dna would eventually include this trait. Its a learned trait...generationf of people will be able to do this without a problem. Id consider this evolution.

[Ihateyou]

Hmm. Cite please.

However, just off the cuff....the ancestors of the Inuit arrived in North America some 11,000 years ago, and were likely living in the Siberian steppes for many thousands before that.

I first learned of it through a Discovery Special. However, I did find this article upon a quick and dirty search.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health Publisher: Taylor & Francis Issue: Volume 32, Number 5 / October 2004 Pages: 390 - 395 DOI: 10.1080/14034940410028398
Indigenous health in the Arctic: an overview of the circumpolar Inuit population

Peter Bjerregaard A1, T Kue Young A2, Eric Dewailly A3, Sven OE Ebbesson A4


Also, this:

Effect of season on peripheral resistance to localised cold stress
Journal
International Journal of Biometeorology (http://www.springerlink.com/content/1432-1254/)
Publisher
Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
ISSN
0020-7128 (Print) 1432-1254 (Online)
Subject
Earth and Environmental Science (http://www.springerlink.com/earth-and-environmental-science/)
Issue
Volume 28, Number 1 / March, 1984 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n1ju72776038/)
DOI
10.1007/BF02193513
Pages
39-45
Online Date
Friday, September 30, 2005


Effect of season on peripheral resistance to localised cold stress
M. Tanaka1, Y. Harimura, Y. Tochihara, S. Yamazaki, T. Ohnaka, J. Matsui and K. Yoshida



Whether or not this is evolution or adaptation is subject to question. When is a genetic change adaptation and when is it evolution?

[grouchybastid]

Jimmy, grouchybastid... I know what you guys are saying. Dont get me wrong...I am questioning the possibilities or possible truths.

If it was a mutation as you suggest its still evolution. And I dont want to start the "evolution" subject from the times of the proto-man but earlier. As early as the ancestor from which proto-humans and other spiecies branched off from.
So...if its a mutation aka evolution...what was the reason for this if not learning to walk upright (food, speed, etc) We know it didnt happen over night and we do know that there would be no reason for this mutation if this spiecies didnt learn/try. A branch of this common ancestor decided to do this therefore resulting in the mutation of this branch which eventually evolved into the modern man.
Now the word "selected" has been mentioned. I dont believe that evolution or natural selection is always a fluke...its possible that its a learned trait which helps them survive. Its passed onto the group, generation to generation.
Take the Inuits for example...did they just adapt to colder climats as Jimmy suggests...or did they evolve to live in them without problems?...or does adapting equal evolving if considered over a number of years?

Nobody here would last if we put ourselves in the shoes of the Inuits...eating their food, etc. But if we have offspring and pass on this adapted way of life....our generations will be just fine. So can we still consider this evolution of some kind?

No man, seriously. This is where you are going way wrong. The physical alteration happened FIRST. This is how evolution works. At no point did any proto-human or early primate decide to walk upright as their primary mode of locomotion.

Now, once the upright walking happened, there are obvious behaviors that develop to follow along...but that's secondary. There are four factors that contribute:
mutation, random genetic drift, gene flow (immigration/emigration), recombination. All produce variation that natural selection can then act on.

[LastRites]

No man, seriously. This is where you are going way wrong. The physical alteration happened FIRST. This is how evolution works. At no point did any proto-human or early primate decide to walk upright as their primary mode of locomotion.

Now, once the upright walking happened, there are obvious behaviors that develop to follow along...but that's secondary. There are four factors that contribute:
mutation, random genetic drift, gene flow (immigration/emigration), recombination. All produce variation that natural selection can then act on.
I think youre wrong. I dont believe that a physical change comes first out of the blue. Learning/trying must come first in order for the spiecies to adapt to such behaviour resulting in physical change over years.
If you are right...why did this physical alteration come first...there was no need for it, how do you explain this. As a fluke?

[King of all Buffets]

So if a group of people did this over a # of thousands/millions of years. Their dna would eventually include this trait. Its a learned trait...generationf of people will be able to do this without a problem. Id consider this evolution.


I would have to agree with you.

[Eek-a-Will]

The whole Metal Gear Solid story was based around these things...

Just my 2 cents.
that game has the most detailed story lines ever you could (and maybe they have) write about about them

[grouchybastid]

I think youre wrong. I dont believe that a physical change comes first out of the blue. Learning/trying must come first in order for the spiecies to adapt to such behaviour resulting in physical change over years.
If you are right...why did this physical alteration come first...there was no need for it, how do you explain this. As a fluke?

I'm not wrong, trust me. I live with a biologist, whose focus is evolutionary morphology in primates. Not to mention that I did and do rather a lot of study myself, despite not being in the field. Find yourself an intro to evolutionary biology text and read, seriously.

However, I'll slap it up once again:
mutation, random genetic drift, gene flow (immigration/emigration), recombination
These are the factors in evolution/natural selection. So yes, the physical alteration was quite likely a fluke, as you put it. Random genetic drift happens, mutations happen all the time. Most of the time, they're either useless or unnoticeable in that they don't change anything. Sometimes they're fatal. The rest of the time, they may well turn out to be beneficial. Factor in deep time, and you've got evolution.

[weknowhowtolive]

I'm not wrong, trust me. I live with a biologist, whose focus is evolutionary morphology in primates. Not to mention that I did and do rather a lot of study myself, despite not being in the field. Find yourself an intro to evolutionary biology text and read, seriously.

However, I'll slap it up once again:

These are the factors in evolution/natural selection. So yes, the physical alteration was quite likely a fluke, as you put it. Random genetic drift happens, mutations happen all the time. Most of the time, they're either useless or unnoticeable in that they don't change anything. Sometimes they're fatal. The rest of the time, they may well turn out to be beneficial. Factor in deep time, and you've got evolution.So say a genetic fluke happens in a couple people thousands of years ago. Would the spread of that be due to interbreeding, and if that is a taboo now, does that affect evolution?

[grouchybastid]

So say a genetic fluke happens in a couple people thousands of years ago. Would the spread of that be due to interbreeding, and if that is a taboo now, does that affect evolution?

Well, a couple of thousand years probably isn't long enough, but I'll play anyway. :smile:

The thing with interbreeding is, family trees collapse if you go back a ways...and not even that far. I want to say it's 50 or so generations, but I could be making that up. Can't be bothered to look it up, and the exact number doesn't matter. The point is, after not all that long generation-wise, you are basically marrying a cousin whether you realize it or not. Marrying immediate relatives is a fairly long-standing taboo in human culture.

So short answer? It doesn't affect evolution.

[weknowhowtolive]

Well, a couple of thousand years probably isn't long enough, but I'll play anyway. :smile:

The thing with interbreeding is, family trees collapse if you go back a ways...and not even that far. I want to say it's 50 or so generations, but I could be making that up. Can't be bothered to look it up, and the exact number doesn't matter. The point is, after not all that long generation-wise, you are basically marrying a cousin whether you realize it or not. Marrying immediate relatives is a fairly long-standing taboo in human culture.

So short answer? It doesn't affect evolution.It wasnt a play thing, i was just asking a question, since i dont understand.

Take dwarfism, or whatever the PC term is. What would it take for dwarfs to go from a genetic mutation and considered a "freak" to being the norm? Would it have to be thousands and thousands of years of dwarf on dwarf action?

[grouchybastid]

It wasnt a play thing, i was just asking a question, since i dont understand.

Take dwarfism, or whatever the PC term is. What would it take for dwarfs to go from a genetic mutation and considered a "freak" to being the norm? Would it have to be thousands and thousands of years of dwarf on dwarf action?

Hmm. Well, one thing it takes is dominant genetics. Since you can have two little people have 'big' children, it doesn't work.

I guess an aspect of the question you're asking is, how long would it take for an established trait in a population to become a dominant trait? I honestly don't know, I'm not sure if it's a straightforward answer or if it's something that can even be applied to human populations. Somebody had mentioned the Drosophilia experiments a few days back (it may have been you, now that I think of it), those experiments showed that existing traits can become dominant in a fairly short time generationally speaking. But it's also a closed population, with minimal external factors.

[weknowhowtolive]

Yeah...makes sense. I was just wondering since if something like humans standing could be a genetic fluke, back then there was nothing to be done. Nowadays something like a 6th thumb, no pinky toe...stuff like that can be fix. I was wondering if that could hinder genetic advancement.

[siobahn]

Its quite possible that people have their behaviour along with characteristics coded into their dna...can biology change due to cultural influences? I believe it can. Just like climate can play a role. But here comes the trick question...is brain size strictly biological or is it biological due to culture? well, one can see in the results of the b-

nor I dont want the bell curve mentioned here either)bah...

ok, ok. :wink:

I dont know where to look for this now but I once read this awesome article. Its about a son and father who were split at birth. The father living here and the sone lived there with another family with different values, etc. 20 years later they were re-united...and the son's behaviour/thinking/reacting to situations was identical to his fathers even though he didnt learn any from him directly.i saw something similar on 20/20 a few years ago. a son was seperated from his father and adopted by a loving, healthy family.. had a great childhood and whatnot. the father was a convicted rapist and murderer sentenced to life in prison. the son spent his childhood/teens as a compassionate, seemingly normal kid. then when he moved out, he started having "anger issues" apparently.. and when he was 21, raped a woman and hacked her up exactly the same way his father did without having any knowledge of this crime.

while this obviously highlights the importance of genetics, it could also be attributed (in part) to culture or society as a whole. i don't want this to turn political rather than scientific, but just as an example: people have been known to commit murder based on what they see in movies. the outside influence "triggers" a natural reaction that would otherwise have laid dormant, maybe for the rest the person's life. no one knows this for sure of course...

but i think that the answer might lie there - that we are guided by natural (instinctual) implulses, but these things must be directed by outside influence. in many ways this takes the form of the parents, but with parents becoming less involved in the lives of their children, it seems that other influences are increasingly more prevalent.

now as for culture changing dna... this is really interesting.. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that this concerns an element of genetics that has not yet been discovered. (see below)

2) Learned traits canned be passed on. That's not evolution. See Jean Baptiste de Lamarck.yes, lamarck's theories have been refuted so far becuase of the idea that acquired traits do not affect the genome. but what about examples like the ones mentioned above? (child/parent seperated etc.) what of alchoholism and drug addiction being inherited even in children that do not live with their addicted parent(s)?

an experiment was done in the 1920s where a bunch of rats were put through a maze. they ran through it over 160 times before getting it right. when the rats produced offspring, they were put through the maze and did considerably better. after five generations, the rats were perfecting the maze in about 20 tries.

this certainly does not mean that everything is passed down from one generation to another or even that these traits are necessarily something that can be quantified or observed.. but given that physical traits can change based on environment, it is hard for me to believe that the psychological side will remain unaffected.

[RuneDK]

Seriously lay off the crack. Do you by any chance know where North Korea is? They're no dumber than any of their neighbours. Also, why would Inuit be smarter than other aboriginals? If you're joking about this list my apologies. Better safe than sorry.

1) Yes, North Korea is the island east of China that rebelled from China when the chinese turned into bloodsucking commies.

2) I'm not talking about that kind of aboriginals. I'm talking about the indigenous people of Australia... You know, ones that only invented a hollow log that you can say weird sounds in, a stick that returns when you throw it and erm... that's about it.

3) Do you think i'm joking?

[LastRites]

I'm not wrong, trust me. I live with a biologist, whose focus is evolutionary morphology in primates. Not to mention that I did and do rather a lot of study myself, despite not being in the field. Find yourself an intro to evolutionary biology text and read, seriously.

However, I'll slap it up once again:

These are the factors in evolution/natural selection. So yes, the physical alteration was quite likely a fluke, as you put it. Random genetic drift happens, mutations happen all the time. Most of the time, they're either useless or unnoticeable in that they don't change anything. Sometimes they're fatal. The rest of the time, they may well turn out to be beneficial. Factor in deep time, and you've got evolution.

Ok...Jean-Baptise Lemarck which you've mentioned explains the following: "...individuals develop traits they use and lose traits they do not use, and that individuals pass the acquired traits onto their offspring. Lamarck asserted that when environmental changes changed the "needs" of a species, which caused it to develop different traits, leading to the transmutation of species."
I am not disagreeing what you said about mutation, gene flow, etc. Im just arguing that mutation does not necessarly come first...actually never when speaking in terms of learned traits/culture influenced dna. In such cases, mutation must come last after the needs of a spiecies have been changed.
This would be a perfect time to mention macroevolution.
But anyways...and think with me for a second.
Do you think/believe that humans first adapt to enviroment and THEN mutate to the needed change?
Or....do you think/believe that humans fluke out in mutations which THEN help them adapt to the needed change? And if thats the case, where does migration play its role?

Its gonna be a long thread here at WSN...but I like it. :)

[grouchybastid]

Ok...Jean-Baptise Lemarck which you've mentioned explains the following: "...individuals develop traits they use and lose traits they do not use, and that individuals pass the acquired traits onto their offspring. Lamarck asserted that when environmental changes changed the "needs" of a species, which caused it to develop different traits, leading to the transmutation of species."
I am not disagreeing what you said about mutation, gene flow, etc. Im just arguing that mutation does not necessarly come first...actually never when speaking in terms of learned traits/culture influenced dna. In such cases, mutation must come last after the needs of a spiecies have been changed.
This would be a perfect time to mention macroevolution.


I should really just drop this one due to the fact that you insist on hanging onto Lamarckian heredity. This is basic college-level genetics here, nothing even that complicated. But I'm obviously a sucker for punishment, or something.


But anyways...and think with me for a second.
Do you think/believe that humans first adapt to enviroment and THEN mutate to the needed change?
Or....do you think/believe that humans fluke out in mutations which THEN help them adapt to the needed change? And if thats the case, where does migration play its role?

Adaptation to environment is possible due to a wide variation in existing traits. So if a group moves to a new environment, the ones that have the existing trait that allows them to survive are the ones that breed, producing children that are able to withstand the environment...and so on and so on. But the genotype already existed before the change in environment...whether that genotype got there via mutation or recombination or whatever.

There are aspects of human evolution that I think most people have a hard time grasping, and they factor directly into this conversation. Those things are deep time, and population size/density. When proto-humans were evolving into modern H. Sapiens, we're talking a population size radically smaller than modern humans. Orders of magnitude smaller, so change in a band of Australopithecenes, for example, would breed into the band quickly.

The other factor is deep time. We're not talking about thousands of years, or even tens of thousands of years. We are dealing with multiple tens of thousands...hundreds of thousands or even millions of years.

So to answer your question(s), yes mutation came first in human evolution...unless it wasn't mutation, it was recombination, or drift. The role of migration in human evolution? Two things: one, the spread of the new genotype and two, new environments that allowed for either continuing change, or environments that were more favorable towards the mutation.

[Bound Fo' Glory]

1) Yes, North Korea is the island east of China that rebelled from China when the chinese turned into bloodsucking commies.

Korea isn't an island, and North Korea is Communist.

[Acari Rotter]

Korea isn't an island, and North Korea is Communist.

Yeah, don't worry about it--he wasn't serious.

[RuneDK]

Korea isn't an island, and North Korea is Communist.

Yoink!

[ienjoybeer]

I thought this was going to be about how black people have more similiarities to apes than white people do.


That's what I thought too, looking at the title.

[Oz.]

You're quite off with the cranial capacity there. Here is some data from the Intelligence journal:

Blacks - 1267 ml, IQ 85.
Whites - 1347 ml, IQ 100.
Asians - 1360 ml, IQ 106.

There are differences in the average brain size and these match observed differences in IQ. So, Einstein was obviously black.
Forgot about this. Perhaps the upper end of average, but average nonetheless...

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/ViktoriyaShchupak.shtml

[Jimmy]

well, one can see in the results of the b-

bah...

ok, ok. :wink:

i saw something similar on 20/20 a few years ago. a son was seperated from his father and adopted by a loving, healthy family.. had a great childhood and whatnot. the father was a convicted rapist and murderer sentenced to life in prison. the son spent his childhood/teens as a compassionate, seemingly normal kid. then when he moved out, he started having "anger issues" apparently.. and when he was 21, raped a woman and hacked her up exactly the same way his father did without having any knowledge of this crime.

while this obviously highlights the importance of genetics, it could also be attributed (in part) to culture or society as a whole. i don't want this to turn political rather than scientific, but just as an example: people have been known to commit murder based on what they see in movies. the outside influence "triggers" a natural reaction that would otherwise have laid dormant, maybe for the rest the person's life. no one knows this for sure of course...

but i think that the answer might lie there - that we are guided by natural (instinctual) implulses, but these things must be directed by outside influence. in many ways this takes the form of the parents, but with parents becoming less involved in the lives of their children, it seems that other influences are increasingly more prevalent.

now as for culture changing dna... this is really interesting.. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that this concerns an element of genetics that has not yet been discovered. (see below)

yes, lamarck's theories have been refuted so far becuase of the idea that acquired traits do not affect the genome. but what about examples like the ones mentioned above? (child/parent seperated etc.) what of alchoholism and drug addiction being inherited even in children that do not live with their addicted parent(s)?

an experiment was done in the 1920s where a bunch of rats were put through a maze. they ran through it over 160 times before getting it right. when the rats produced offspring, they were put through the maze and did considerably better. after five generations, the rats were perfecting the maze in about 20 tries.

That's moving more into the scope of psychology, but yes that is probably a genetic disposition to have emotional problems or something. My little brother is adopted, and although he never lived for any of his blood family he still shows a lot of eerie similarities to their behavior. This really doesn't say much at all for human evolution. A trait like having anger issues would've been disastrous to have. You may kill someone and the rest of the clan turns on you. 100,000 years ago humans would've needed clans to survive, so murdering people would've been detrimental.

Also, it should be noted that a vast majority of people with parents who dis things like kill people never do anything like their parents.


Anyway, going back to LastRites. I say again... learned traits cannot be passed on. Go to your local university, find the biology department, and ask any professor. The thing about the Inuits having skin that is better for cold... that's more likely than anything adaptation. A newborn Inuit would have to show those same traits. Being exposed to the cold for 20 years will change your skin, but a newborn will have skin like any other baby.

It is also possible, though, that the ancestors of the Inuit went through some evolution a long time ago. Maybe one of them was born with a mutation that made his skin better able to resist cold, so he is able to outlive the others and make more babies. This passes this mutation on into the Inuit gene pool, where it continues to become more and more prevalent.

[Jimmy]

Ok...Jean-Baptise Lemarck which you've mentioned explains the following: "...individuals develop traits they use and lose traits they do not use, and that individuals pass the acquired traits onto their offspring. Lamarck asserted that when environmental changes changed the "needs" of a species, which caused it to develop different traits, leading to the transmutation of species."
I am not disagreeing what you said about mutation, gene flow, etc. Im just arguing that mutation does not necessarly come first...actually never when speaking in terms of learned traits/culture influenced dna. In such cases, mutation must come last after the needs of a spiecies have been changed.
This would be a perfect time to mention macroevolution.
But anyways...and think with me for a second.
Do you think/believe that humans first adapt to enviroment and THEN mutate to the needed change?
Or....do you think/believe that humans fluke out in mutations which THEN help them adapt to the needed change? And if thats the case, where does migration play its role?

Its gonna be a long thread here at WSN...but I like it. :)


I think humans adapt, and then mutations may or may not happen which enable these humans to live longer in the given environment. Sometimes, though, mutations happen and propagate for other reasons (the ones Grouchy mentioned earlier).

It depends what period in human history we're talking about. If you mean cavemen and shit, then migration played a role because humans were chasing food or the environment because too harsh to keep living there, so they moved. The environment forced humans to adapt, but it doesn't force mutations. I'm of Mexican descent, but I fucking hate hot weather. Nothing forces mutations, they're all created on accident.

I really don't know why its so hard to comprehend. Evolution takes so long because these mutations may or may not have. They might happen in 10 years, but more than likely it will take millions of years for the mutation to happen by chance.

On the subject of culture, not that is obviously influenced by environment.

[siobahn]

That's moving more into the scope of psychology, ...yes.. my post was a bit scattered as well... :redface: (i really gotta start editing these things).

but how do you explain the rats genetically "learning" how to do the maze?

[grouchybastid]

but how do you explain the rats genetically "learning" how to do the maze?

a) Cite

b) the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'

[weknowhowtolive]

yes.. my post was a bit scattered as well... :redface: (i really gotta start editing these things).

but how do you explain the rats genetically "learning" how to do the maze?You're saying baby rats could run the maze the first time every time without ever being in it before, based on genetics? I wanna see proof of that.

[Oz.]

You're saying baby rats could run the maze the first time every time without ever being in it before, based on genetics? I wanna see proof of that.
it doesn't fucking happen. we trained rats at uni. you gotta retrain every generation.

[Doc]

Forgot about this. Perhaps the upper end of average, but average nonetheless...

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/ViktoriyaShchupak.shtml (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/ViktoriyaShchupak.shtml)

Here (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf#search=%22%22Brain%20s ize%2C%20IQ%2C%20and%20racial-group%20differences%22%22) ius a link for the paper I got those stats from:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf#search=%22%22Brain%20s ize%2C%20IQ%2C%20and%20racial-group%20differences%22%22

[weknowhowtolive]

it doesn't fucking happen. we trained rats at uni. you gotta retrain every generation.thats what i thought.

[Chicagoskin]

asians have an iq of 120 only? ha! mine is 130! take that japan!

[Oz.]

Here (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf#search=%22%22Brain%20s ize%2C%20IQ%2C%20and%20racial-group%20differences%22%22) ius a link for the paper I got those stats from:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/RandRProgressIntell2003.pdf#search=%22%22Brain%20s ize%2C%20IQ%2C%20and%20racial-group%20differences%22%22
I don't doubt the stats Doc. And the Einstein joke was alright. But you know you're picking only one set of stats...

Across the literature the average size is in the 1150-1600 ballpark. Okay, I overshot a bit, but Einstein was definitely on the tail end of the spectrum no matter how you swing it. That was my point.

[Doc]

I don't doubt the stats Doc. And the Einstein joke was alright. But you know you're picking only one set of stats...

Across the literature the average size is in the 1150-1600 ballpark. Okay, I overshot a bit, but Einstein was definitely on the tail end of the spectrum no matter how you swing it. That was my point.

Oh yeah.....for sure. Its besides the point really. Im just bored, sitting at my computer working on a model, not a flesh one unfortunately.

[Oz.]

Oh yeah.....for sure. Its besides the point really. Im just bored, sitting at my computer working on a model, not a flesh one unfortunately.
Yeah I'm avoiding the point on this one. Too much idiocy spouted already. How's the phd goin'?

[Doc]

Yeah I'm avoiding the point on this one. Too much idiocy spouted already. How's the phd goin'?

Not too long to go now really. Working on a couple more papers.......running a model and sitting in front of the screen watching the numbers flash by. Fkn exciting stuff.

[Oz.]

Not too long to go now really. Working on a couple more papers.......running a model and sitting in front of the screen watching the numbers flash by. Fkn exciting stuff.
Sweet. Good luck with the model.

[Tokyohoon]

1) If I hung out with Albert Einstein all the time, I'm sure he could teach me a thing or two, but if I hang out with Johnny Retard, I really doubt I'll get any dumber. I'll just have higher self-esteem.

Interstingly, educational studies have shown that gifted students placed with slower learners and not given advanced materials do tend to lose some of their ability to learn.

In other words, hanging out with Johnny Retard actually just might make you dumber. Personally, I figure it's just 'cause you're more likely to get hit in the head a lot hanging out with dumbfucks.

LastRites, you're trying real hard - I can almost smell the woodchips burning all the way over here in Japan, but you're really just talking out of your ass on this one.

Learned behaviors, as has been pointed out, are not inherited. Further, even IQ can be subject to variation dependent on social environs and peer groups.

Traits such as upright walking are not learned behaviors - they are evolutionary advantages - those whose skeletal mutations allowed them to stand were able to reach fruit hanging in places that others could not. The same goes for the opposable thumb.

Ok...but if a person adapts to a certain (enviroment, custom, way of life) and lives this way for a number of years...eventually over a period of time this person is no longer learning to adapt...but evolved to fit it correctly.
Or am I wrong here?

You're confusing personal evolution with genetic evolution. One is a lifelong process, the other is an aeons long process.

True, but what about the Inuit? There have been scientific studies performed that show that their skin is more resistant to cold than yours and mine. By performing infrared analysis of the facial surface, it's been shown that they are consistently warmer than you and I would be.

This is a fairly straightforward example of straight up natural selection. THe more resistant to cold, the better the ability to hunt in the cold, hence the better a provider - and the more children borne. And these are the remnants of people that crossed the Bering straight when it was a solid piece of land around 10 to 20,000 years ago. They've had a while to make babies.
I think youre wrong. I dont believe that a physical change comes first out of the blue. Learning/trying must come first in order for the spiecies to adapt to such behaviour resulting in physical change over years.
If you are right...why did this physical alteration come first...there was no need for it, how do you explain this. As a fluke?

Yep, a fluke. Just like ferrets evolving to possess back-curved claws - enabling them to grasp prey more firmly. Any mutation that allows the mutant to be more likely to survive than those around him will be a mutation that is likely to be passed on, as that mutant will be seen as a desirable breeding partner.

It wasnt a play thing, i was just asking a question, since i dont understand.

Take dwarfism, or whatever the PC term is. What would it take for dwarfs to go from a genetic mutation and considered a "freak" to being the norm? Would it have to be thousands and thousands of years of dwarf on dwarf action?

For a different answer, it would take dwarfism becoming advantageous to survival. For example, a breed of alien overlords landing and dominating the planet and driving human beings underground, where those who can flee to the smallest tunnels and caves are the safest from raids.

n experiment was done in the 1920s where a bunch of rats were put through a maze. they ran through it over 160 times before getting it right. when the rats produced offspring, they were put through the maze and did considerably better. after five generations, the rats were perfecting the maze in about 20 tries.

You forget to mention that the incentive was extra food - the rats who were most successful at solving the maze - through superior scent and sense of direction - were the ones more likely to breed and have healthy offsprng, as they were fed better. :)

You also forget to mention - rats are not humans.

[LastRites]

Interstingly, educational studies have shown that gifted students placed with slower learners and not given advanced materials do tend to lose some of their ability to learn.

In other words, hanging out with Johnny Retard actually just might make you dumber. Personally, I figure it's just 'cause you're more likely to get hit in the head a lot hanging out with dumbfucks.
Can that cause the person to have un-developed genes and eventually lose them over a period of time? If a person doesnt use his brain generation after generation...wouldnt his skull become smaller? In other words...if a person begun walking on their hands and feet again, generation after generation...can we lose the ability to walk on our two's because adaptation can result in mutation?

LastRites, you're trying real hard - I can almost smell the woodchips burning all the way over here in Japan, but you're really just talking out of your ass on this one.

Learned behaviors, as has been pointed out, are not inherited. Further, even IQ can be subject to variation dependent on social environs and peer groups.

Traits such as upright walking are not learned behaviors - they are evolutionary advantages - those whose skeletal mutations allowed them to stand were able to reach fruit hanging in places that others could not. The same goes for the opposable thumb.

You're confusing personal evolution with genetic evolution. One is a lifelong process, the other is an aeons long process.
I fully get what you guys are saying...maybe Im just wording it wrong.
Anyways... a bear can also stand and walk on its two limbs. Given enough time, with the bears learning abilities...who is to say that a mutation would not take place over a period of time where eventually a generation of bears would not require to walk on its fours? Of course upright walking is an advantage due to mutation but why did this mutation take place? Is it because of:
* migration - it was necessary to survive, therefore adaptation to the enviroment resulting in mutation
* mutation - came out of left field and gave a spieces an advantage to adapt and then evolve within its current enviroment

This is a fairly straightforward example of straight up natural selection. THe more resistant to cold, the better the ability to hunt in the cold, hence the better a provider - and the more children borne. And these are the remnants of people that crossed the Bering straight when it was a solid piece of land around 10 to 20,000 years ago. They've had a while to make babies.
Does an Inuit "just" go through a mutation giving him the ability to live in Africa...or does he have to migrate there first, adapt and then a mutation takes place for him to be able to survive resulting in natural selection?

You forget to mention that the incentive was extra food - the rats who were most successful at solving the maze - through superior scent and sense of direction - were the ones more likely to breed and have healthy offsprng, as they were fed better. :)

Ok but the rats have been fed by humans... but lets say these rats learned a certain behaviour which gives them the ability to hunt better therefore had better food. Learned behaviour may not be the reason in them being able to do all these things 10 times better than other rats...but is it safe to say that such learned behaviour was ONE of the factors leading to it? And is such learned behaviour passed from generation to generation? Rats a perfect example as they do pass such information to their offspring, hence their ability to adapt quickly.

And I just read a few articles that explain that adaptation is a behavioral trait. So still the question is, does adaptation result in mutation or does mutation give us the ability to adapt?

[grouchybastid]

Can that cause the person to have un-developed genes and eventually lose them over a period of time? If a person doesnt use his brain generation after generation...wouldnt his skull become smaller? In other words...if a person begun walking on their hands and feet again, generation after generation...can we lose the ability to walk on our two's because adaptation can result in mutation?

I fully get what you guys are saying...maybe Im just wording it wrong.
Anyways... a bear can also stand and walk on its two limbs. Given enough time, with the bears learning abilities...who is to say that a mutation would not take place over a period of time where eventually a generation of bears would not require to walk on its fours? Of course upright walking is an advantage due to mutation but why did this mutation take place? Is it because of:
* migration - it was necessary to survive, therefore adaptation to the enviroment resulting in mutation
* mutation - came out of left field and gave a spieces an advantage to adapt and then evolve within its current enviroment

Does an Inuit "just" go through a mutation giving him the ability to live in Africa...or does he have to migrate there first, adapt and then a mutation takes place for him to be able to survive resulting in natural selection?

Ok but the rats have been fed by humans... but lets say these rats learned a certain behaviour which gives them the ability to hunt better therefore had better food. Learned behaviour may not be the reason in them being able to do all these things 10 times better than other rats...but is it safe to say that such learned behaviour was ONE of the factors leading to it? And is such learned behaviour passed from generation to generation? Rats a perfect example as they do pass such information to their offspring, hence their ability to adapt quickly.

And I just read a few articles that explain that adaptation is a behavioral trait. So still the question is, does adaptation result in mutation or does mutation give us the ability to adapt?

OK seriously, this is getting monotonous. You've had at least 3 different people explain this to you and you're still asking the same question. It's OK to admit you were mistaken.

Mutation is only one aspect of genetic change.

Now, for the last time, change (physical/genetic) happens FIRST.

Learned behaviour IS NOT inherited.

[Doc]

Can that cause the person to have un-developed genes and eventually lose them over a period of time? If a person doesnt use his brain generation after generation...wouldnt his skull become smaller? In other words...if a person begun walking on their hands and feet again, generation after generation...can we lose the ability to walk on our two's because adaptation can result in mutation?

I fully get what you guys are saying...maybe Im just wording it wrong.
Anyways... a bear can also stand and walk on its two limbs. Given enough time, with the bears learning abilities...who is to say that a mutation would not take place over a period of time where eventually a generation of bears would not require to walk on its fours? Of course upright walking is an advantage due to mutation but why did this mutation take place? Is it because of:
* migration - it was necessary to survive, therefore adaptation to the enviroment resulting in mutation
* mutation - came out of left field and gave a spieces an advantage to adapt and then evolve within its current enviroment

Does an Inuit "just" go through a mutation giving him the ability to live in Africa...or does he have to migrate there first, adapt and then a mutation takes place for him to be able to survive resulting in natural selection?

Ok but the rats have been fed by humans... but lets say these rats learned a certain behaviour which gives them the ability to hunt better therefore had better food. Learned behaviour may not be the reason in them being able to do all these things 10 times better than other rats...but is it safe to say that such learned behaviour was ONE of the factors leading to it? And is such learned behaviour passed from generation to generation? Rats a perfect example as they do pass such information to their offspring, hence their ability to adapt quickly.

And I just read a few articles that explain that adaptation is a behavioral trait. So still the question is, does adaptation result in mutation or does mutation give us the ability to adapt?

The mutation is random. IF that mutation just so happens to make the organism better suited to its environment, then it has a better chance of surviving, mating, and passing on this mutation to its offspring.

[Tokyohoon]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v608/evilincarnate/BeatDeadHorse.gif

You're just repeating yourself, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Environmental conditions make a certain trait or mutation advantageous to survival. Possessors of said trait or mutation will tend to have more surviving offspring than other members of their group. In the short term, this producecs traits like the Inuit's lessened sensitivity to cold - which is shared to some degree by most Canadians whose families have been in Canada for a few generations. In the long (aeons) term, this can give rise to a new species (dogs and cats were, at a point long ago in prehistory, the same animal).

In the case of the rats, those that were better equipped to solve mazes (sense of smell, structure of inner ear providing better directional sense) received more food and had more, stronger, offspring. The offspring still had to be trained to run through the damned maze. A larger portion of the group simply was better equipped for maze-running by virtue of their nose and ears.

And I just read a few articles that explain that adaptation is a behavioral trait. So still the question is, does adaptation result in mutation or does mutation give us the ability to adapt?

Apples and oranges. Mutation occurs randomly, beneficial mutations are reinforced by environmental conditions, malignant mutations are not. Adaptation will, if anything, hide mutations and make them take longer to be either bred into the group's gene pool or out of it - but it will only delay the process, not stop it. We don't quite have the technology to tamper with the genome just yet.

And as for your initial question, about the potential to revert to walking on all fours? Look up "devolution" in the dictionary. A perfect example is the lightening of skin in Northern Europeans after the migration from Africa. Dark skin was no longer am advantageous trait, and paler skin prevailed in the lower strength sunlight. When a mutation ceases to have advantage, it will cease to have dominance.

In closing - the horse is dead. Stop flogging it.

[LastRites]

Ok, I get it. Now...is it safe to say that one is superior to another due to their mutations? Although...each person can be brought up to the same level if given the chance...is there still differences in mutations in populations? Some positive, some negative. If we all evolved due to mutations from a common ancestor...humans must be superior to other animals. (speaking in terms of early types of man/apes)
Im not speaking this as my opinion just talking as a third party.

[grouchybastid]

Ok, I get it. Now...is it safe to say that one is superior to another due to their mutations? Although...each person can be brought up to the same level if given the chance...is there still differences in mutations in populations? Some positive, some negative. If we all evolved due to mutations from a common ancestor...humans must be superior to other animals. (speaking in terms of early types of man/apes)
Im not speaking this as my opinion just talking as a third party.

Superiority has no place in a discussion of evolution. It's a meaningless concept in this context. Changes in a species are either beneficial, in which case they propagate, meaningless in which case they have no impact, or harmful in which case they die out.

[LastRites]

Changes in a species are either beneficial, in which case they propagate, meaningless in which case they have no impact, or harmful in which case they die out.
I agree. But what about other competing animals? Hence the quote "The strong survive". If genetic mutations made a part of a certain spiecies stronger, and are more successful at procreating...wouldnt they be superior to the weaker ones?

[grouchybastid]

I agree. But what about other competing animals? Hence the quote "The strong survive". If genetic mutations made a part of a certain spiecies stronger, and are more successful at procreating...wouldnt they be superior to the weaker ones?

No, they are simply more successful. Superiority is a subjective concept, and therefore has no place in objective science.

[Oz.]

I agree. But what about other competing animals? Hence the quote "The strong survive". If genetic mutations made a part of a certain spiecies stronger, and are more successful at procreating...wouldnt they be superior to the weaker ones?
You're working with a hundred year old definition of evolution mate. That's why this thread is going nowhere...

[Chicago Red]

Ahhhh....good to see that all is "right" in the world. How the hell are ya? Anyway, I don't think the real question is whether there are difference in brain size due to "biological reason" or whether it is "biological reasons due to culture." The real truth is that these difference are trifle in statistical variance and are no real measure of intelligence. I wish the same could be said for diet, poverty and educational development which have more of an substantial impact on brain development in young children.

Its quite possible that people have their behaviour along with characteristics coded into their dna...can biology change due to cultural influences? I believe it can. Just like climate can play a role. But here comes the trick question...is brain size strictly biological or is it biological due to culture? (since there are differences between people....and Im not talking about superiority of one over the other, nor I dont want the bell curve mentioned here either)