Many of the things humans do we learned to do from nature, or from God if he exists. One of the things humans learned to do of course is to breed different types of animals, but have humans really bred any new and entirely different species? Have humans managed to do anything in their ten thousand years (or whatever) of deliberate influence over animal breeding that indicates the huge variety of different species on this planet could have just happened to have happened by chance?
What value it there in human influence on evolution? Humans have been influencing their own evolution for centuries, and hopefully (for future humans) that will turn out to be a good thing. How about for animals? Today there are billions of animals who experience life only because humans raise them. In contrast to what advocates of the gross mi$nomer "animal rights" (more correctly referred to as eliminationists in regards to domestic animals) would like everyone to believe, many domestic animals--including many that are raised for food--have decent lives of positive value. Misnomer advocates are opposed to taking domestic animals' lives into consideration when they are of positive value, because doing so works in favor of decent animal welfare which works directly against their objective to eliminate them. Eliminationists are so opposed to taking the animals' lives into consideration that one of their founders named Henry Salt invented a fantasy about a talking pig years ago. Apparently the purpose of the fantasy was to invent an insulting term with which to refer to the concept of having basic consideration for the lives of animals humans raise for food. The insulting term the fantasy promotes for having consideration for the lives of animals is "the logic of the larder". The fantasy was written to create a bad impression of having consideration for the lives of animals raised for food, and also to suggest that ANTIconsideration is superior to inconsideration and even more so to having consideration.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 20 2009, 08:09 PM)
Humans have been influencing their own evolution for centuries,.
How so? I think humans have been pretty much the same physiologically for over 10,000 years.
How so? I think humans have been pretty much the same physiologically for over 10,000 years.
Does nylon eating bacteria count?
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever. At least human genetic diversity is increasing.
And don't forget animals are not easily divided into "species".
Just look at ring species.
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever. At least human genetic diversity is increasing.
And don't forget animals are not easily divided into "species".
Just look at ring species.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 20 2009, 09:07 PM)
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever.
In what way?
In what way?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 20 2009, 11:07 PM)
In what way?
If you can argue that genetic diversity is increasing, then you have an example of evolution. However, I'm not quite sold either way on whether human diversity is actually increasing.
If you can argue that genetic diversity is increasing, then you have an example of evolution. However, I'm not quite sold either way on whether human diversity is actually increasing.
apart from bacteria, we have not kept any records, and i doubt that even 1000 years or so is long enough to see any evolutionary changes, especially within organisms that have a larger genome sequence.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 12:19 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Humans have been influencing their own evolution for centuries,.
How so? I think humans have been pretty much the same physiologically for over 10,000 years.
I'm convinced that the majority of people who thrive in today's societies would not have been able to survive before "civilization", or in most of the tribes...clans...etc that existed for about 90% of the time that modern man appears to have been on Earth. Then again, the beings who thrived in those conditions wouldn't necessarily be likely to do well in societies like we have today. It's more mental than physical, but even physically humans are larger in general today than they were 100 years ago. Look at old war uniforms and other clothing from 100+ years ago...
I'm convinced that the majority of people who thrive in today's societies would not have been able to survive before "civilization", or in most of the tribes...clans...etc that existed for about 90% of the time that modern man appears to have been on Earth. Then again, the beings who thrived in those conditions wouldn't necessarily be likely to do well in societies like we have today. It's more mental than physical, but even physically humans are larger in general today than they were 100 years ago. Look at old war uniforms and other clothing from 100+ years ago...
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 21 2009, 01:07 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Humans have been influencing their own evolution for centuries,.
Does nylon eating bacteria count?
I don't believe they have influenced human evolution much if any yet, and out of consideration for future generations of humans so far I hope they never do.
I don't believe they have influenced human evolution much if any yet, and out of consideration for future generations of humans so far I hope they never do.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever. At least human genetic diversity is increasing.
It should be the highest ever, since transportation is the best it's ever been and acceptance of interracial relationships is pretty high these days.
It should be the highest ever, since transportation is the best it's ever been and acceptance of interracial relationships is pretty high these days.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And don't forget animals are not easily divided into "species".
Just look at ring species.
Do you think there are examples of ring species developing in domesticated animals? Do you think there is any significance to whether they have or have not? How about to whether they could or could not?
Just look at ring species.
Do you think there are examples of ring species developing in domesticated animals? Do you think there is any significance to whether they have or have not? How about to whether they could or could not?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...tml#speciations
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/...l/403158a0.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
QUOTE
Speciation of numerous plants...
Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. ...
Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.
Speciation has also been observed in mammals. ...
Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. ...
Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.
Speciation has also been observed in mammals. ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/...l/403158a0.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
thanks rpenner, i guess this makes my previous post meaningless. 
i was going to mention flies but wasnt quite sure whether it was more like 'breeds' of canines. eg/ same species but a different breed.
i was going to mention flies but wasnt quite sure whether it was more like 'breeds' of canines. eg/ same species but a different breed.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 20 2009, 09:07 PM)
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever. At least human genetic diversity is increasing.
Would not the fact that humans are less isolated from each other now make us less diverse and even more the same?
Would not the fact that humans are less isolated from each other now make us less diverse and even more the same?
My reasoning is wouldn't isolation more likely create new traits (isn't that what evolution is) and our cultural diversity only mixes old ones?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 22 2009, 08:40 AM)
Would not the fact that humans are less isolated from each other now make us less diverse and even more the same?
That is faith based thinking, aka guessing.
People thought that way. Some had faith in their guess.
Others checked it out. And guess what when they checked out genetic diversity, it's growing.
That is the problem of faith, you don't go from wrong to right as often.
That is faith based thinking, aka guessing.
People thought that way. Some had faith in their guess.
Others checked it out. And guess what when they checked out genetic diversity, it's growing.
That is the problem of faith, you don't go from wrong to right as often.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 22 2009, 06:59 AM)
That is faith based thinking, aka guessing.
People thought that way. Some had faith in their guess.
Others checked it out. And guess what when they checked out genetic diversity, it's growing.
That is the problem of faith, you don't go from wrong to right as often.
I am only curious.
What way is it growing?
Can it be determined there is any change that could not have been present in the past?
People thought that way. Some had faith in their guess.
Others checked it out. And guess what when they checked out genetic diversity, it's growing.
That is the problem of faith, you don't go from wrong to right as often.
I am only curious.
What way is it growing?
Can it be determined there is any change that could not have been present in the past?
Mutations happen in every species all the time. "Evolution" is just a descriptor for whether or not a specific mutation is successful by our subjective standards. So when you ask if there is any documented "evolution" then you're kind of asking the wrong question.
Sickle Cell Anemia could be viewed as a mutation that is "successful" in that it passed (and continues) to pass it's self to successive generations. There are a litany of such mutations in humans alone.
So yes ... "evolution" happens every day. Chimerism would be another good example I'd think.
Sickle Cell Anemia could be viewed as a mutation that is "successful" in that it passed (and continues) to pass it's self to successive generations. There are a litany of such mutations in humans alone.
So yes ... "evolution" happens every day. Chimerism would be another good example I'd think.
Well, DNA can mutate by a whole range of known mechanisms. Some mutations are either beneficial or detrimental for an organism, allowing for positive or negative selection in a population (for instance: lactose tolerance). This mechanism is based on survival.
Changes in genome are the effect of the non ideality of the reality - nothing is perfect, copying of information is not perfect either, so mutations are inevitable. This follows that natural selection is a mechanism that doesn't require any special implementation. Whichever organism is better as something, will win over those inferior.
Changes in genome are the effect of the non ideality of the reality - nothing is perfect, copying of information is not perfect either, so mutations are inevitable. This follows that natural selection is a mechanism that doesn't require any special implementation. Whichever organism is better as something, will win over those inferior.
Well, some evolutionary pressure from humans:
- our hunting styles cause pressure on targeted animals. Bucks are getting smaller antlers, lobsters are getting smaller, etc, because we select the largest & best of a lot of species. This is a recent change.
- to my knowledge, the lapdogs are not capable of breeding with wolves 'naturally'. This means that if the wolves died off, their ancestors are nearly not the same species.
- our diversity is increasing because diversity is subtle, and there are a lot of changes possible in our DNA. As well, we're mix-n-matching DNA like we've never mixed it before.
- our hunting styles cause pressure on targeted animals. Bucks are getting smaller antlers, lobsters are getting smaller, etc, because we select the largest & best of a lot of species. This is a recent change.
- to my knowledge, the lapdogs are not capable of breeding with wolves 'naturally'. This means that if the wolves died off, their ancestors are nearly not the same species.
- our diversity is increasing because diversity is subtle, and there are a lot of changes possible in our DNA. As well, we're mix-n-matching DNA like we've never mixed it before.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Sep 24 2009, 03:41 PM)
Well, some evolutionary pressure from humans:
- our hunting styles cause pressure on targeted animals. Bucks are getting smaller antlers, lobsters are getting smaller, etc, because we select the largest & best of a lot of species. This is a recent change.
Humans also provide the opportunity for billions of domestic animals to exist. From an ethical standpoint shouldn't the lives of domestic animals be given as much consideration as those of wildlife when they are of positive value?
- our hunting styles cause pressure on targeted animals. Bucks are getting smaller antlers, lobsters are getting smaller, etc, because we select the largest & best of a lot of species. This is a recent change.
Humans also provide the opportunity for billions of domestic animals to exist. From an ethical standpoint shouldn't the lives of domestic animals be given as much consideration as those of wildlife when they are of positive value?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
- to my knowledge, the lapdogs are not capable of breeding with wolves 'naturally'. This means that if the wolves died off, their ancestors are nearly not the same species.
From what I've been told dogs and wolves can interbreed, and I've seen several animals that people said were that mix. I believe that chickens can breed with jungle fowl, domestic pigs can breed with wild pigs, domestic horses can breed with wild horses, domestic turkeys can breed with wild turkeys, domestic sheep can breed with wild sheep, and cattle could still breed with aurochs if there were any left.
From what I've been told dogs and wolves can interbreed, and I've seen several animals that people said were that mix. I believe that chickens can breed with jungle fowl, domestic pigs can breed with wild pigs, domestic horses can breed with wild horses, domestic turkeys can breed with wild turkeys, domestic sheep can breed with wild sheep, and cattle could still breed with aurochs if there were any left.
Sure, dogs & wolves can interbreed. I was talking about the subset of dogs that we call lapdogs. They (to the best of my knowledge) cannot breed with wolves any longer.
You can't always pick a group of animals and say that they are n species. Where n is a natural number.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 26 2009, 06:24 PM)
You can't always pick a group of animals and say that they are n species. Where n is a natural number.
The lives of animals raised by humans only occur because humans raise them regardless of what happens with different groups of animals, so the lives of domestic animals should always be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. That doesn't mean they are all of positive value, but that also should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not certain things are cruel TO THEM, such as raising them for food.
The lives of animals raised by humans only occur because humans raise them regardless of what happens with different groups of animals, so the lives of domestic animals should always be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. That doesn't mean they are all of positive value, but that also should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not certain things are cruel TO THEM, such as raising them for food.
QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 27 2009, 05:48 PM)
The lives of animals raised by humans only occur because humans raise them regardless of what happens with different groups of animals, so the lives of domestic animals should always be given as much or more consideration than their deaths. That doesn't mean they are all of positive value, but that also should be taken into consideration when evaluating whether or not certain things are cruel TO THEM, such as raising them for food.
What does that have to do with what I said?
What I"m talking about is you can't always select 100 animals and say they belong to 50 species.
There is no salient line between species. How many species you count depends on whether you are a splitter or a lumper.
What does that have to do with what I said?
What I"m talking about is you can't always select 100 animals and say they belong to 50 species.
There is no salient line between species. How many species you count depends on whether you are a splitter or a lumper.
This subject is very complex , but I think is obviouis the chromosoma can be influenced by various ways
Study of the Molecular Basis of Tame and Aggressive Behavior in the Silver Fox Model
http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm
http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 8 2009, 12:17 AM)
Study of the Molecular Basis of Tame and Aggressive Behavior in the Silver Fox Model
http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm
Down on that level is where I believe God and Satan would probably have the greatest influence...influencing tiny chemical/electrical changes in the mind and reproductive systems, etc.
http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm
Down on that level is where I believe God and Satan would probably have the greatest influence...influencing tiny chemical/electrical changes in the mind and reproductive systems, etc.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 9 2009, 11:45 PM)
Down on that level is where I believe God and Satan would probably have the greatest influence...influencing tiny chemical/electrical changes in the mind and reproductive systems, etc.
I see. At what level does the Easter Bunny have an influence?
I see. At what level does the Easter Bunny have an influence?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 9 2009, 02:15 PM)
Down on that level is where I believe God and Satan would probably have the greatest influence...influencing tiny chemical/electrical changes in the mind and reproductive systems, etc.
Behavior modification here was accomplished through selective breeding by Humans. What did aliens have to do with it?
Behavior modification here was accomplished through selective breeding by Humans. What did aliens have to do with it?
pnelson419, What did God have to do with it? 
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 10 2009, 06:01 PM)
pnelson419, What did God have to do with it?
Either nothing or everything.
Either nothing or everything.
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 9 2009, 06:29 PM)
I see. At what level does the Easter Bunny have an influence?
If God and Satan exist it's likely that the beast influeces belief in the dishonesty associated with the EB and Santa Clause for a couple of reasons, but things like that are almost certainly beyond your ability to appreciate and probably even to comprehend. Is there ANYTHING about the possibility of God's existence that you are capable of thinking about realistically? I seriously doubt it. You have faith he does not exist and that's as far as you're able to go in that direction, which is nowhere at all.
If God and Satan exist it's likely that the beast influeces belief in the dishonesty associated with the EB and Santa Clause for a couple of reasons, but things like that are almost certainly beyond your ability to appreciate and probably even to comprehend. Is there ANYTHING about the possibility of God's existence that you are capable of thinking about realistically? I seriously doubt it. You have faith he does not exist and that's as far as you're able to go in that direction, which is nowhere at all.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 12 2009, 02:17 PM)
If God and Satan exist it's likely that the beast influeces belief in the dishonesty associated with the EB and Santa Clause for a couple of reasons, but things like that are almost certainly beyond your ability to appreciate and probably even to comprehend. Is there ANYTHING about the possibility of God's existence that you are capable of thinking about realistically? I seriously doubt it. You have faith he does not exist and that's as far as you're able to go in that direction, which is nowhere at all.
If the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus exist it's likely that the bunny influeces belief in the dishonesty associated with God and Satan for a couple of reasons, but things like that are almost certainly beyond your ability to appreciate and probably even to comprehend.
If the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus exist it's likely that the bunny influeces belief in the dishonesty associated with God and Satan for a couple of reasons, but things like that are almost certainly beyond your ability to appreciate and probably even to comprehend.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 10 2009, 10:36 PM)
QUOTE (photojack+)
pnelson419, What did God have to do with it?
One of the things humans learned to do of course is to breed different types of animals, but have humans really bred any new and entirely different species?
This probably depends on what you mean by species. If you consider species that are those animals unable to interbreed due to physical or behavioral function, then yes- there are many dogs physically or behaviorally unable to breed with wolves, their ancestral species.
Scientists have created a new life form in he lab- a form of bacteria. This is a pretty extreme example but exists. Bacteria are somewhat loosely defined as separate species though because it has been observed many participate in gene swapping, which sort of weakens the notion of a species considerably.
That being said it is clear that other organisms have also contributed to the creation of new species. Predators create new versions of prey species by driving local prey populations into new forms of morphology.
So a better question might be- have humans INTENTIONALLY created new species through their active involvement. And the answer again would be yes- although without a conscious notion of evolution perhaps, but the selection of animals who are fatter, yummier, or better for the table- were withheld from the table, with the purpose of making more of them. This is intentionality at its best, at least for the carnivores among us.
This probably depends on what you mean by species. If you consider species that are those animals unable to interbreed due to physical or behavioral function, then yes- there are many dogs physically or behaviorally unable to breed with wolves, their ancestral species.
Scientists have created a new life form in he lab- a form of bacteria. This is a pretty extreme example but exists. Bacteria are somewhat loosely defined as separate species though because it has been observed many participate in gene swapping, which sort of weakens the notion of a species considerably.
That being said it is clear that other organisms have also contributed to the creation of new species. Predators create new versions of prey species by driving local prey populations into new forms of morphology.
So a better question might be- have humans INTENTIONALLY created new species through their active involvement. And the answer again would be yes- although without a conscious notion of evolution perhaps, but the selection of animals who are fatter, yummier, or better for the table- were withheld from the table, with the purpose of making more of them. This is intentionality at its best, at least for the carnivores among us.
Have humans managed to do anything in their ten thousand years (or whatever) of deliberate influence over animal breeding that indicates the huge variety of different species on this planet could have just happened to have happened by chance?
I am understanding this question to mean- is it possible that the animals that we see, that we consider domesticated- could have happened due to chance rather than influence over breeding?
Yes.
It did happen due to chance. The mutations or sexual recombination which brought about interesting forms arose from chance. The non chance part was the selection of these for propagation.
So the question- could they have come about by chance? is yes. Could they have been selected in the way they were without the influence of humans? Possibly, but doubtful. Would any natural force select the fattest, the plumpest, the juciest- NOT to eat until they bred? The only force that would do that would be intentionality- which is human in this case (although perhaps some other organism also exhibits intentionality in its food source).
This intentionality of controlling the prey species is the definition of domestication. So then we are left with- is there domestication occurring without domestication? No.
But if we have domestication, then we have it, and the food species would not evolve without it in the same manner.
What value it there in human influence on evolution?
The main value has been gastronomic and aesthetic but I am sure there are examples of medicinal value and others. This is a very human centric view though. Have we influenced evolution in a way which has value for some other criteria? Here we would need some specific criteria, but I am sure there are many of interest.
Interesting post.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for posting no useful information or asking any valid questions.]
Either nothing or everything.
Then aliens had nothing or everything to do with it afawk, since no one has been able to suggest how he could be a native of this planet. You answered your own question to me even if you truly can't comprehend that you did. If you can't comprehend it when you answer it yourself how do you think you could get it any better if someone else answers it for you too 
?
Then aliens had nothing or everything to do with it afawk, since no one has been able to suggest how he could be a native of this planet. You answered your own question to me even if you truly can't comprehend that you did. If you can't comprehend it when you answer it yourself
how do you think you could get it any better if someone else answers it for you too ?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 12 2009, 02:22 PM)
Then aliens had nothing or everything to do with it afawk, since no one has been able to suggest how he could be a native of this planet. You answered your own question to me even if you truly can't comprehend that you did. If you can't comprehend it when you answer it yourself how do you think you could get it any better if someone else answers it for you too ?
I thought it was a very interesting study.
I hope others got more out of the site than you did.
I thought it was relevant to the topic and the discussion.
how do you think you could get it any better if someone else answers it for you too ? I thought it was a very interesting study.
I hope others got more out of the site than you did.
I thought it was relevant to the topic and the discussion.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 12 2009, 11:09 PM)
I thought it was a very interesting study.
I hope others got more out of the site than you did.
So far it appears I'm the only one who got anything out of it at all, which is that what they're looking for is on a level I consider to be significant. Apparently they do too or they wouldn't be looking for it. What else more specifically do you think people should be getting out of it?
I hope others got more out of the site than you did.
So far it appears I'm the only one who got anything out of it at all, which is that what they're looking for is on a level I consider to be significant. Apparently they do too or they wouldn't be looking for it. What else more specifically do you think people should be getting out of it?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 13 2009, 01:38 PM)
So far it appears I'm the only one who got anything out of it at all, which is that what they're looking for is on a level I consider to be significant. Apparently they do too or they wouldn't be looking for it. What else more specifically do you think people should be getting out of it?
There is nothing specifically I think people should be getting out of it.
There are many things I got out of it.
None had anything to do with aliens.
There is nothing specifically I think people should be getting out of it.
There are many things I got out of it.
None had anything to do with aliens.
QUOTE
One of the things humans learned to do of course is to breed different types of animals, but have humans really bred any new and entirely different species?
This probably depends on what you mean by species. If you consider species that are those animals unable to interbreed due to physical or behavioral function, then yes- there are many dogs physically or behaviorally unable to breed with wolves, their ancestral species.
Scientists have created a new life form in he lab- a form of bacteria. This is a pretty extreme example but exists. Bacteria are somewhat loosely defined as separate species though because it has been observed many participate in gene swapping, which sort of weakens the notion of a species considerably.
That being said it is clear that other organisms have also contributed to the creation of new species. Predators create new versions of prey species by driving local prey populations into new forms of morphology.
So a better question might be- have humans INTENTIONALLY created new species through their active involvement. And the answer again would be yes- although without a conscious notion of evolution perhaps, but the selection of animals who are fatter, yummier, or better for the table- were withheld from the table, with the purpose of making more of them. This is intentionality at its best, at least for the carnivores among us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
One of the things humans learned to do of course is to breed different types of animals, but have humans really bred any new and entirely different species? |
This probably depends on what you mean by species. If you consider species that are those animals unable to interbreed due to physical or behavioral function, then yes- there are many dogs physically or behaviorally unable to breed with wolves, their ancestral species.
Scientists have created a new life form in he lab- a form of bacteria. This is a pretty extreme example but exists. Bacteria are somewhat loosely defined as separate species though because it has been observed many participate in gene swapping, which sort of weakens the notion of a species considerably.
That being said it is clear that other organisms have also contributed to the creation of new species. Predators create new versions of prey species by driving local prey populations into new forms of morphology.
So a better question might be- have humans INTENTIONALLY created new species through their active involvement. And the answer again would be yes- although without a conscious notion of evolution perhaps, but the selection of animals who are fatter, yummier, or better for the table- were withheld from the table, with the purpose of making more of them. This is intentionality at its best, at least for the carnivores among us.
Have humans managed to do anything in their ten thousand years (or whatever) of deliberate influence over animal breeding that indicates the huge variety of different species on this planet could have just happened to have happened by chance?
I am understanding this question to mean- is it possible that the animals that we see, that we consider domesticated- could have happened due to chance rather than influence over breeding?
Yes.
It did happen due to chance. The mutations or sexual recombination which brought about interesting forms arose from chance. The non chance part was the selection of these for propagation.
So the question- could they have come about by chance? is yes. Could they have been selected in the way they were without the influence of humans? Possibly, but doubtful. Would any natural force select the fattest, the plumpest, the juciest- NOT to eat until they bred? The only force that would do that would be intentionality- which is human in this case (although perhaps some other organism also exhibits intentionality in its food source).
This intentionality of controlling the prey species is the definition of domestication. So then we are left with- is there domestication occurring without domestication? No.
But if we have domestication, then we have it, and the food species would not evolve without it in the same manner.
QUOTE
What value it there in human influence on evolution?
The main value has been gastronomic and aesthetic but I am sure there are examples of medicinal value and others. This is a very human centric view though. Have we influenced evolution in a way which has value for some other criteria? Here we would need some specific criteria, but I am sure there are many of interest.
Interesting post.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for posting no useful information or asking any valid questions.]
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 14 2009, 12:12 AM)
There is nothing specifically I think people should be getting out of it.
There are many things I got out of it.
Apparently not, since you don't think anyone should have gotten anything specific out of it. Not only did you not get "many things" out of it, but it appears you didn't get any things out of it.
There are many things I got out of it.
Apparently not, since you don't think anyone should have gotten anything specific out of it. Not only did you not get "many things" out of it, but it appears you didn't get any things out of it.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
None had anything to do with aliens.
You got nothing out of it
so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.
You got nothing out of it
so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.QUOTE (TinyTree+Oct 15 2009, 08:57 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Have humans managed to do anything in their ten thousand years (or whatever) of deliberate influence over animal breeding that indicates the huge variety of different species on this planet could have just happened to have happened by chance?
I am understanding this question to mean- is it possible that the animals that we see, that we consider domesticated- could have happened due to chance rather than influence over breeding?
No. Humans have been deliberately influencing forms of animals through breeding. Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance?
No. Humans have been deliberately influencing forms of animals through breeding. Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance?
No one says that it happened "just by chance".
Who says that it happened "just by chance"?
And you know nothing about chance. You really shouldn't even use the word.
No. Humans have been deliberately influencing forms of animals through breeding. Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance?
QUOTE (TinyTree+)
. . .
Have we influenced evolution in a way which has value for some other criteria? Here we would need some specific criteria, but I am sure there are many of interest.
Humans provided excellent living conditions for rats to thrive in, which also provides great conditions for fleas. Humans also provide nice conditions for pigeons and some other birds, and mice. I point out to advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" that wildlife is much more welcome in grazing areas than in crop lands, but that aspect never seems to mean a thing to them. The fact that animals experience life as well as death because they are raised for food means nothing to them either. The only thing misnomer advocates care about is the fact that they're disturbed by other humans eating meat, so they want it to stop.
Have we influenced evolution in a way which has value for some other criteria? Here we would need some specific criteria, but I am sure there are many of interest.
Humans provided excellent living conditions for rats to thrive in, which also provides great conditions for fleas. Humans also provide nice conditions for pigeons and some other birds, and mice. I point out to advocates of the gross misnomer "animal rights" that wildlife is much more welcome in grazing areas than in crop lands, but that aspect never seems to mean a thing to them. The fact that animals experience life as well as death because they are raised for food means nothing to them either. The only thing misnomer advocates care about is the fact that they're disturbed by other humans eating meat, so they want it to stop.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 20 2009, 03:45 PM)
No. Humans have been deliberately influencing forms of animals through breeding. Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance?
No one says that it happened "just by chance".
Who says that it happened "just by chance"?
And you know nothing about chance. You really shouldn't even use the word.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 20 2009, 09:15 PM)
Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance?
Do you think before you write?
Do you think before you write?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 20 2009, 11:40 AM)
Apparently not, since you don't think anyone should have gotten anything specific out of it. Not only did you not get "many things" out of it, but it appears you didn't get any things out of it.
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
None had anything to do with aliens.
You got nothing out of it so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.
You are just plain wrong
Here is an article I think relevant to the discussion.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html
Not that you will get much out of it either.
You got nothing out of it
so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.You are just plain wrong
Here is an article I think relevant to the discussion.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html
Not that you will get much out of it either.
Not something that should be tantalized.
apparently there is some analogy!
apparently there is some analogy!
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 20 2009, 03:55 PM)
No one says that it happened "just by chance".
Who says that it happened "just by chance"?
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that life could have developed on this planet? How about on other planets?
Who says that it happened "just by chance"?
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that life could have developed on this planet? How about on other planets?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you know nothing about chance. You really shouldn't even use the word.
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 20 2009, 03:56 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Have ten thousand years of human breeding created enough variation in different species to suggest that the huge variety of different species on Earth is likely to have happened just by chance? Do you think before you write?
Apparently you don't have any evidence it suggests such variety could have happened by chance. Hmmm , maybe there is no evidence it could have happened just by chance AT ALL...
Do you think before you write? Apparently you don't have any evidence it suggests such variety could have happened by chance. Hmmm , maybe there is no evidence it could have happened just by chance AT ALL...
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 25 2009, 11:38 PM)
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that life could have developed on this planet?
How about when all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve are fulfilled?
How about when all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve are fulfilled?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 25 2009, 06:08 PM)
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that life could have developed on this planet? How about on other planets?
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And you know nothing about chance. You really shouldn't even use the word.
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
You really do love those false dilemmas don't you.
I saw a leaf fall off a tree. Where it landed was pure chance. That it fell was not.
And if you do have to refer to it as "just by chance", you can start by learning about probability BEFORE talking about it.
In other words just because you need to talk about chance, does not somehow magically make you qualified to talk about chance.
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
You really do love those false dilemmas don't you.
I saw a leaf fall off a tree. Where it landed was pure chance. That it fell was not.
And if you do have to refer to it as "just by chance", you can start by learning about probability BEFORE talking about it.
In other words just because you need to talk about chance, does not somehow magically make you qualified to talk about chance.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 26 2009, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
You really do love those false dilemmas don't you.
I saw a leaf fall off a tree. Where it landed was pure chance. That it fell was not.
And if you do have to refer to it as "just by chance", you can start by learning about probability BEFORE talking about it.
In other words just because you need to talk about chance, does not somehow magically make you qualified to talk about chance.
That wasn't even a good dance. More like sort of tapping one foot or maybe even just wiggling a few toes. But I'm always ready to give someone another chance to try backing up their...whatever...in this case it's sort of a whine...... Anyway, here's another chance for you 
:
What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
You really do love those false dilemmas don't you.
I saw a leaf fall off a tree. Where it landed was pure chance. That it fell was not.
And if you do have to refer to it as "just by chance", you can start by learning about probability BEFORE talking about it.
In other words just because you need to talk about chance, does not somehow magically make you qualified to talk about chance.
That wasn't even a good dance. More like sort of tapping one foot or maybe even just wiggling a few toes. But I'm always ready to give someone another chance to try backing up their...whatever...in this case it's sort of a whine
...... Anyway, here's another chance for you :What do you think is the best way of referring to the possibility that life came into existence just by chance, other than by referring to it as just by chance?
QUOTE (vkamath+Oct 25 2009, 06:33 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that life could have developed on this planet?
How about when all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve are fulfilled?
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve could be fulfilled?
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve could be fulfilled?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 11:32 AM)
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve could be fulfilled?
Why is it so hard to believe in chance?
Why is it so hard to believe in chance?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 20 2009, 11:31 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
You got nothing out of it so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.
You are just plain wrong
Here is an article I think relevant to the discussion.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html
Not that you will get much out of it either.
I'm not going to try to get anything out of it or try to figure out what you're claiming that you got out of it. Since for one thing you can't even say what you think you got out of it, for another thing you SURE can't apply what you apparently didn't get to anything at all, including the likelyhood or not of creation.
6) Given societal confusion (being raised by a lower evolved human species,
and other undetermined conditions--that would slow their advanced status showing
up in current studies, etc.) some of these adults should soon be displaying their
advanced abilities (or remaining quiet and observant).
Why do you assume a genetic mutation automatically equates to "advanced status" and or "advanced abilities"?
so you're in no position to try to evaluate whether or not what you didn't get out of it could have anything to do with creation.You are just plain wrong
Here is an article I think relevant to the discussion.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html
Not that you will get much out of it either.
I'm not going to try to get anything out of it or try to figure out what you're claiming that you got out of it. Since for one thing you can't even say what you think you got out of it, for another thing you SURE can't apply what you apparently didn't get to anything at all, including the likelyhood or not of creation.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 09:02 PM)
Other then being produced deliberately or happening by chance, what other ways do you think that all the conditions required for life to originate and evolve could be fulfilled?
By chemical reaction.
By chemical reaction.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 21 2009, 03:07 AM)
(buttershug @ Sep 20 2009, 09:07 PM) :
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever.
In what way?
1) Genetic mutation must derive from individuals to their children...
2) Psychoactive drugs were found to "adjust" genetic coding (I will verify this if needed).
3) Psychoactive drugs were administered briefly in the late 1950s to birthing mothers (as a method to delay birth-- GOOGLE : "Canadian medical journal 1950 contraction inhibitor drug").
4) These recommendations were practiced outside of Canada in the same time period.
5) The altered human specimens would be today, aged into their fifties.
6) Given societal confusion (being raised by a lower evolved human species,
and other undetermined conditions--that would slow their advanced status showing
up in current studies, etc.) some of these adults should soon be displaying their
advanced abilities (or remaining quiet and observant).
7) The economic system of the sapient species human is rapidly collapsing...
And I've read that humans are evolving faster than ever.
In what way?
1) Genetic mutation must derive from individuals to their children...
2) Psychoactive drugs were found to "adjust" genetic coding (I will verify this if needed).
3) Psychoactive drugs were administered briefly in the late 1950s to birthing mothers (as a method to delay birth-- GOOGLE : "Canadian medical journal 1950 contraction inhibitor drug").
4) These recommendations were practiced outside of Canada in the same time period.
5) The altered human specimens would be today, aged into their fifties.
6) Given societal confusion (being raised by a lower evolved human species,
and other undetermined conditions--that would slow their advanced status showing
up in current studies, etc.) some of these adults should soon be displaying their
advanced abilities (or remaining quiet and observant).
7) The economic system of the sapient species human is rapidly collapsing...
QUOTE (keith*+Oct 27 2009, 06:18 PM)
6) Given societal confusion (being raised by a lower evolved human species,
and other undetermined conditions--that would slow their advanced status showing
up in current studies, etc.) some of these adults should soon be displaying their
advanced abilities (or remaining quiet and observant).
Why do you assume a genetic mutation automatically equates to "advanced status" and or "advanced abilities"?
QUOTE (occidental+Oct 27 2009, 06:35 PM)
Why do you assume a genetic mutation automatically equates to "advanced status" and or "advanced abilities"?
My remarks are no more than an observation of possibilities, not of concrete expectations of result.
I only assume and conjecture that advanced evolutionary behavior, characteristics, etc., and therefore a further evolved species of human would only be realized through some form of natural mutation processes, however slight.
And that the sapient ability to recognize such differences would be naturally limited by perspective.
My remarks are no more than an observation of possibilities, not of concrete expectations of result.
I only assume and conjecture that advanced evolutionary behavior, characteristics, etc., and therefore a further evolved species of human would only be realized through some form of natural mutation processes, however slight.
And that the sapient ability to recognize such differences would be naturally limited by perspective.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 27 2009, 11:43 AM)
I'm not going to try to get anything out of it
obviously
obviously
What about c-sections?
If a babys brain is limited by the size of the birth canal and a woman's hips, what is the effect of many generations of c-sections?
If a babys brain is limited by the size of the birth canal and a woman's hips, what is the effect of many generations of c-sections?
c-sections will not permit this absurdity.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 27 2009, 03:40 PM)
Why is it so hard to believe in chance?
I do consider the possibility that everything happened by chance. I also consider the possibility that God does exist but that he somehow originated from lifelessness...and include it on the list:
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
QUOTE (keith*+Oct 27 2009, 07:18 PM)
My remarks are no more than an observation of possibilities, not of concrete expectations of result.
I only assume and conjecture that advanced evolutionary behavior, characteristics, etc., and therefore a further evolved species of human would only be realized through some form of natural mutation processes, however slight.
What percentage of Neanderthals would be capable of participating in forums? What percentage of humans today could survive as the Neanderthals did?
I only assume and conjecture that advanced evolutionary behavior, characteristics, etc., and therefore a further evolved species of human would only be realized through some form of natural mutation processes, however slight.
What percentage of Neanderthals would be capable of participating in forums? What percentage of humans today could survive as the Neanderthals did?
QUOTE (keith*+)
And that the sapient ability to recognize such differences would be naturally limited by perspective.
Whether God exists or not we are living in one stage of human evolution. One of the best examples of difference may turn out to be tendencies toward and acceptance of violence and theft...the two of which go hand in hand imo. Is it only because people can afford it that they get out of highly violent and theiving areas, or do some people feel comfortable in such environments and accept them or seek them out?
Whether God exists or not we are living in one stage of human evolution. One of the best examples of difference may turn out to be tendencies toward and acceptance of violence and theft...the two of which go hand in hand imo. Is it only because people can afford it that they get out of highly violent and theiving areas, or do some people feel comfortable in such environments and accept them or seek them out?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 28 2009, 12:46 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I'm not going to try to get anything out of it or try to figure out what you're claiming that you got out of it. Since for one thing you can't even say what you think you got out of it, for another thing you SURE can't apply what you apparently didn't get to anything at all, including the likelyhood or not of creation.
Is it only because people can afford it that they get out of highly violent and theiving areas.
People threatened with losing what they can afford, are most apt to display violence and theft.
Examples:
1) Oil interests starting wars.
2) Bank CEOs demanding rewards for destroying their companies.
If a babys brain is limited by the size of the birth canal and a woman's hips, what is the effect of many generations of c-sections?
Canal size is a minor limiting factor, as fetal brain/skull is malleable during this stage.
C-sections ARE however a limiting factor, as newborns gain an advantage by the light stresses applied during the natural process (it is my understanding).
During the natural birthing process, certain levels of shock can be minimized, by returning the new-born to a "body-temp" bath, immediately following birth.
obviously
You have made it extremely obvious.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 05:47 PM)
I do consider the possibility that everything happened by chance. I also consider the possibility that God does exist but that he somehow originated from lifelessness...and include it on the list:
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
I don't and no one that understands evolution, probability, Atheism, Agnosticism, and many related subjects does.
There is no way possible for everything to have happened by chance.
And please start saying something like "a godlike being" or something because you are still not referring to God.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
I don't and no one that understands evolution, probability, Atheism, Agnosticism, and many related subjects does.
There is no way possible for everything to have happened by chance.
And please start saying something like "a godlike being" or something because you are still not referring to God.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 02:00 PM)
You have made it extremely obvious.
Wanting to get anything out of the links I posted is up to you.
If there is any part you would like to discuss I will be glad to. I may ask what your response has to do with the study If I don't see the relevance.
Oh yea we tried that.
A big waste of time.
Wanting to get anything out of the links I posted is up to you.
If there is any part you would like to discuss I will be glad to. I may ask what your response has to do with the study If I don't see the relevance.
Oh yea we tried that.
A big waste of time.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 28 2009, 11:32 PM)
I don't and no one that understands evolution, probability, Atheism, Agnosticism, and many related subjects does.
There is no way possible for everything to have happened by chance.
We--including you--are in no position to make such a claim. In fact from our pov it seems more likely that if God does exist things still owe their existence to chance when you break it all the way down, because if God exists he exists by chance even if he had deliberate influence on getting things to be as they are now. What other options are there? That it wasn't chance but God created himself deliberately? That doesn't seem very likely to me. How about that something else created God deliberately? Then the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately ...
There is no way possible for everything to have happened by chance.
We--including you--are in no position to make such a claim. In fact from our pov it seems more likely that if God does exist things still owe their existence to chance when you break it all the way down, because if God exists he exists by chance even if he had deliberate influence on getting things to be as they are now. What other options are there? That it wasn't chance but God created himself deliberately?
That doesn't seem very likely to me. How about that something else created God deliberately? Then the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately ...
QUOTE (pnelson419+Oct 29 2009, 02:13 AM)
Wanting to get anything out of the links I posted is up to you.
If there is any part you would like to discuss I will be glad to. I may ask what your response has to do with the study If I don't see the relevance.
Oh yea we tried that.
A big waste of time.
You claim to have gotten something out of it but can't say what. Your inability to explain what you think is significant is a clear indication that you got nothing out of it, and if you actually did your inability to say what it is still creates a clear impression that you got nothing.
If there is any part you would like to discuss I will be glad to. I may ask what your response has to do with the study If I don't see the relevance.
Oh yea we tried that.
A big waste of time.
You claim to have gotten something out of it but can't say what. Your inability to explain what you think is significant is a clear indication that you got nothing out of it, and if you actually did your inability to say what it is still creates a clear impression that you got nothing.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 05:50 PM)
Is it only because people can afford it that they get out of highly violent and theiving areas.
People threatened with losing what they can afford, are most apt to display violence and theft.
Examples:
1) Oil interests starting wars.
2) Bank CEOs demanding rewards for destroying their companies.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 29 2009, 06:48 PM)
We--including you--are in no position to make such a claim. In fact from our pov it seems more likely that if God does exist things still owe their existence to chance when you break it all the way down, because if God exists he exists by chance even if he had deliberate influence on getting things to be as they are now. What other options are there? That it wasn't chance but God created himself deliberately? That doesn't seem very likely to me. How about that something else created God deliberately? Then the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately ...
Way to pay attention, not.
I said that it can't be that everything is by chance.
If god exists and does something, anything by chance then not everything is by chance.
And if God does everything randomly then He has no influence. If he has influence then it's no longer pure chance.
If god does not exist then still not everything is by chance.
Our existing on a planet that can support life can't be by chance because we could not evolve on a planet then can't support life.
So, with a God or without a God not everything is pure chance.
Is there any situation where you can imagine three or more possibilities, or are you always limited to two?
Can you understand that a if you play a game of chess then you can have a win, loss, or tie. Is that concept really beyond you?
That doesn't seem very likely to me. How about that something else created God deliberately? Then the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately, in which case the something else would have happened by chance unless something else created it deliberately ... Way to pay attention, not.
I said that it can't be that everything is by chance.
If god exists and does something, anything by chance then not everything is by chance.
And if God does everything randomly then He has no influence. If he has influence then it's no longer pure chance.
If god does not exist then still not everything is by chance.
Our existing on a planet that can support life can't be by chance because we could not evolve on a planet then can't support life.
So, with a God or without a God not everything is pure chance.
Is there any situation where you can imagine three or more possibilities, or are you always limited to two?
Can you understand that a if you play a game of chess then you can have a win, loss, or tie. Is that concept really beyond you?
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 29 2009, 02:52 PM)
You claim to have gotten something out of it but can't say what. Your inability to explain what you think is significant is a clear indication that you got nothing out of it, and if you actually did your inability to say what it is still creates a clear impression that you got nothing.
Though I had no will to let your claims that I got nothing from the studies I linked to influence my response a visit from my daughter this weekend reminded me of the thing about the study that changed my outlook the most.
My daughter recently got a Siberian husky and brought it down with her.
This I thought an interesting coincidence since the study I linked to was on the domestication of the Siberian silver fox. Though the link I posted had a lot of information on the study not all the information I had read on the subject was limited to that link.
It seemed when the foxes were bred for tameness many of their juvenile traits were retained into maturity.
Because of that study I now saw that full grown husky as an overgrown wolf pup.
Here is a link to a page with more on this aspect of the study:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview...27&size=largest
Though I had no will to let your claims that I got nothing from the studies I linked to influence my response a visit from my daughter this weekend reminded me of the thing about the study that changed my outlook the most.
My daughter recently got a Siberian husky and brought it down with her.
This I thought an interesting coincidence since the study I linked to was on the domestication of the Siberian silver fox. Though the link I posted had a lot of information on the study not all the information I had read on the subject was limited to that link.
It seemed when the foxes were bred for tameness many of their juvenile traits were retained into maturity.
Because of that study I now saw that full grown husky as an overgrown wolf pup.
Here is a link to a page with more on this aspect of the study:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview...27&size=largest
QUOTE (occidental+Oct 28 2009, 03:34 AM)
If a babys brain is limited by the size of the birth canal and a woman's hips, what is the effect of many generations of c-sections?
Canal size is a minor limiting factor, as fetal brain/skull is malleable during this stage.
C-sections ARE however a limiting factor, as newborns gain an advantage by the light stresses applied during the natural process (it is my understanding).
During the natural birthing process, certain levels of shock can be minimized, by returning the new-born to a "body-temp" bath, immediately following birth.
QUOTE (nopEda+Oct 28 2009, 05:50 PM)
What percentage of Neanderthals would be capable of participating in forums? What percentage of humans today could survive as the Neanderthals did?
It is interesting you mentioned this.
Neanderthal "forums" (though inferred, not documented) probably were limited to personal encounters, some likely around crude fire hearths (seemingly for light, heat, and simple ceremony only.
1) Modern humans took fire to cooking and literally to new heights, as they placed beacons on hilltops, to convey messages and distant news.
The stresses of migration, hunting/gathering, constant environment disruption, etc., took its toll on Neanderthals.
2) Modern humans farmed and stayed put.
We forum, therefore we evolve.
It is interesting you mentioned this.
Neanderthal "forums" (though inferred, not documented) probably were limited to personal encounters, some likely around crude fire hearths (seemingly for light, heat, and simple ceremony only.
1) Modern humans took fire to cooking and literally to new heights, as they placed beacons on hilltops, to convey messages and distant news.
The stresses of migration, hunting/gathering, constant environment disruption, etc., took its toll on Neanderthals.
2) Modern humans farmed and stayed put.
We forum, therefore we evolve.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Nov 2 2009, 01:13 AM)
Though I had no will to let your claims that I got nothing from the studies I linked to influence my response a visit from my daughter this weekend reminded me of the thing about the study that changed my outlook the most.
My daughter recently got a Siberian husky and brought it down with her.
This I thought an interesting coincidence since the study I linked to was on the domestication of the Siberian silver fox. Though the link I posted had a lot of information on the study not all the information I had read on the subject was limited to that link.
It seemed when the foxes were bred for tameness many of their juvenile traits were retained into maturity.
Because of that study I now saw that full grown husky as an overgrown wolf pup.
Here is a link to a page with more on this aspect of the study:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview...27&size=largest
I'm familiar with the concept that "domesticated" animals are like wild animals that never "grow up". Another example is the fact that no mature wild cats mew, though almost all domesticated ones do. Remaining immature helps animals retain dependancy on humans so they're not always frantic to escape.
My daughter recently got a Siberian husky and brought it down with her.
This I thought an interesting coincidence since the study I linked to was on the domestication of the Siberian silver fox. Though the link I posted had a lot of information on the study not all the information I had read on the subject was limited to that link.
It seemed when the foxes were bred for tameness many of their juvenile traits were retained into maturity.
Because of that study I now saw that full grown husky as an overgrown wolf pup.
Here is a link to a page with more on this aspect of the study:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview...27&size=largest
I'm familiar with the concept that "domesticated" animals are like wild animals that never "grow up". Another example is the fact that no mature wild cats mew, though almost all domesticated ones do. Remaining immature helps animals retain dependancy on humans so they're not always frantic to escape.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.