Re: Let's cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)

On Jun 30, 9:07 am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob T."

races have different skin tones, but those are the only differences
evolution wanted to let happen.

I admit that I have not studied evolution or genetics or much of any
biological science ... there are many specific areas of "science" in which
my education (and interest) is deficient. What I do know (or think I know)
about evolution is really quite limited.

I do remember a lot of talk about "natural selection" in whatever it was
that is part of my education. I also remember learning about "mutations"
and "survival of the fittest" being a part of the language of such
matters.

It is my understanding that during the long process of evolution ...
organisms have mutations of their genetic makeup that occur from time to
time but that most mutations are "not good" ... that is, the survival of
the
organism is not "improved" by the mutation ... as a matter of fact, the
mutation (like being "born" [sorry to use such a word ... it is just a
concept here] without a vital "part" ... like a stomach or something minor
but still not as "good" as a regular part ... and by regular I mean
"normal"
or "natural" or "average" or some such concept ... like almost all of the
other similar parts in similar organisms. (I know this is complicated ....
but life and evolution is pretty complicated.)

Actually, most mutations are neutral, but you're right that harmful
mutations outnumber beneficial ones.
==========================

I am certainly glad you showed up, Bob ... you know a lot more about
evolution than I do.  And I am going to miss you at BARGE.  I plan on
winning one of the tournaments again and I remember and thank you for your
support at the final table a couple of years ago.  I had the same plan last
year but I was thwarted by better players.

I heard they just got lucky ;-} Actually, it may be a while before I
make it to another BARGE - I have resumed playing tournament bridge
seriously after a hiatus of several years.

(And if you would like a special pickle chip, I would be happy to send you
one.  Drop me an email with a postal address.)

Anyway, it is the occasional (maybe very rare) mutation ... that is, this
strange "different" "not normal" "deviant" thing is what evolution uses to
make the organism "better" ... and by better, I think that evolution would
say "better adapted to the current environment" in which the organism is
attempting to survive and replicate.

Yes, "better adapted to the current environment" is more accurate than
"better".  Polar bears are a relatively new species, only about
200,000 years old.  They are not "better" than brown bears, but they
are certainly "better adapted" to the arctic climate.
=======================

That is exactly what I thought.

Somewhere many years ago (and in this galaxy in which we attempt to
survive
and replicate), human beings came to be ... it was a long trip from the
primordial ooze. But do not the scientists that know about these things
believe that we are still "evolving?" Are not these organisms that we call
"human beings" all just a little different ... each and every one ... and
each and every time we replicate, is there not some "mutation" in some
(even
many) of the individual "parts" of the being that are sometimes "good",
sometimes "neutral" and sometimes "bad?"

An example of a relatively recent mutation that many humans have is
lactose tolerance.  People whose ancestors raised cows tend to have
it, people with other ancestry usually don't.
=========================

An excellent example.  Maybe if your ancestors needed to be able to run real
fast, you would be able to run faster than other folks whose ancestors did
not have to run so fast all the time ... in general ... historically.

I am still quite interested in the evolutionary tree of the development of
"free will" and "altruism" but I think that should have a thread or threads
of its own.

The evolution of altruism is a relatively recent, and very
interesting, field of study. As for free will, I'm not sure it has
been scientifically established that we actually have free will. I
believe we do, but that's just a layman's opinion.

Are not some of these beings better adapted to the environment in which
they
attempt to survive and replicate in sometimes many small ways and
sometimes
in larger ways ... and some poorer adapted? I am sure someone might
continue this discussion in a better way than I can. But it seems that
"evolution" is chock-a-block full of mutations all the time ... no
replicating organism (or part of that organism) is free of mutations.

If I recall correctly, each human being is born with about three dozen
mutations.  Evolution continues for humans, but our environments are
very different from what our ancestors' faced.
==============================

That confuses me.  Wait ... you mean that each person might have as many as
three dozen mutations of some observable sort ... not that each human being
has the "same" three dozen mutations ... right?  If everyone had the same
mutations they would not be mutations, would they?

Most of your DNA is copied directly from your parents, but the copying
process is prone to a small number of errors which we call
"mutations". Thus, about 49.999% of your genes are copied from each
parent, but a few of your genes are miscopied.

I presume that there might be a lot of other mutations, but they are "too
small" to be observable ... or maybe not?  Again, I am not claiming much
expertise.

When did evolution decide that everyone was born exactly the same?

That's like asking when gravity decided that things should fall up.
=====================================

I might claim a lot more educational experience and personal interest in
gravity, but I do not see why that question about evolution is similar in
any way.  Maybe that was sarcasm.  A woman needs a man like a fish needs a
bicycle?

There were two things wrong with your question, which I tried to point
out by analogy. The first is that evolution, like gravity, is a
natural process that does not "decide" anything. The second is that
everyone is not exactly the same, any more than gravity makes things
fall up.

I guess my question was ill conceived.  I was pointing to the "all men are
created equal" sort of idea.  Sort of the all human beings are "normal" sort
of idea ... there are no significant differences in the human species.  Some
sort of way to address the "differences" in what I perceive exist between
folks with different ancestors from largely isolated geographic areas for
long periods of time.  There may not be any differences, but you mentioned
the lactose thing and that made sense.  Seems to me that there should be
many, many such differences.

There are indeed many such differences, skin color and shape of facial
features being obvious examples.

When did higher organisms become exempt from that "survival of the
fittest" part?

They didn't, but some things don't matter to us the way they mattered
to our ancestors.  Without glasses, I and many others would be at a
severe disadvantage in the wild.  "Is that a charging rhino or my
girlfriend?"
=====================

Are you saying that our environment changed?

Yes, exactly. Being nearsighted is not a significant survival
disadvantage when you can wear glasses to correct your vision. Being
smart enough to avoid certain parts of town after dark is a survival
advantage.

 Are you saying that various human beings are still controlled (in an evolutionary way) by "survival of
the fittest" genetic instincts?  I am not sure I am following correctly..

That's not what I was talking about, but certainly humans are greatly
effected by our evolved instincts. Some people have a strong
instinctive fear of snakes, others do not.

As to the glasses, you seem to be saying (and correct me if I am wrong) that
folks with poor vision for whatever reason "survive" more now than they did
in the past?  I can buy that.  I wonder if that "survival of the fittest"
concept is still with us  ... I wonder if "greed" is a form of "survival of
the fittest" ... I wonder if protection of self first and family second is a
natural example of a powerful and normal instinct.

Yes, but note that humans do not always put self first and family
second - some humans sacrifice themselves to save their children;
others go crazy and murder their own offspring.

I like to watch ants and bees ... sometimes, I wonder if humans could ever
evolve into that sort of society.  Just a fantasy thought.  Sort of a sci-fi
brain fart.  I have not reread Brave New World or Animal Farm or Lord of the
Flies in a long time, but I wonder about those sorts of societies sometimes
when someone touts the advantage of "strong government."

I think insects are just too different from humans to be comparable
that way. We can learn more about human instinct by observing our
closest relatives, chimps, bonobos, and gorillas.

When did humans stop being "different" and become all the same ...
perfectly
natural and normal and average.

Are pigs really the "smartest" of the barnyard animals? What do scientists
mean when they say that pigs are the smartest (or do they really say it)?

Smartest of the barnyard animals, perhaps, but not as smart as apes,
cetaceans, and elephants.
======================

You likely have a better definition of "smart" and/or "intelligent" than I do.

Is there any breed of dog that is "smarter" than any other breed?

There certainly are breeds of dogs that are dumber than others.
===========================

I am guessing that "dumber" is an opposite of "smarter" ... how would we know?

I'm not sure how they measure canine intelligence - obstacle courses
and such, I imagine. I do know that if you pick up a book of dog
breeds, some will be described as "intelligent" and others will not.

(I thought that was only in Lake Wobegone where all the children were
above average.)

<chuckle>
============================

My reference is to the "education" thread, of course.  But if individuals
can be measured as to their relative "intelligence" ... why would folks with
different genetic ancestors also not be subject to such measureable
differences?  Not that I claim to be completely sure what anyone (including
myself) might mean by "intelligence" without more words to modify the concept.

The problem with measuring the "intelligence" of a group of people is
that it is very difficult to separate cultural effects from inherited
intelligence. Here in California, students of Asian ancestry
consistently do better in school than other kids. One might assume
this is a genetic difference, but their family culture tends to value
scholarship more than families from other ethnic groups.

Is there such a thing as "normal" anything?  Norming is a powerfully useful
concept in many areas, it is useless in discussions of human "intelligence?"
Or any other inherited "trait?"  (Assuming that "trait" is a useful word.)

I don't like to use the word "normal" for groups of people because
there's an implied value judgement. Is it "normal" to be right-
handed? Is it therefore "abnormal" to be left-handed?

- Bob T.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lets keep it simple this time.
    ... >>>The Bible teaches that God is perfect. ... > Mutations are the worst thing that can happen to an organism. ... Natural selection has nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... I admit that I have not studied evolution or genetics or much of any ... I also remember learning about "mutations" ... Maybe if your ancestors needed to be able to run real ... three dozen mutations of some observable sort ... ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... I admit that I have not studied evolution or genetics or much of any ... organisms have mutations of their genetic makeup that occur from time to ... organism is not "improved" by the mutation ... ... and replicate), human beings came to be ... ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... evolution wanted to let happen. ... I also remember learning about "mutations" ... An example of a relatively recent mutation that many humans have is ...  Maybe if your ancestors needed to be able to run ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Lets cut to the chase--BIG question (racism thread)
    ... I admit that I have not studied evolution or genetics or much of any ... I also remember learning about "mutations" ... organism is not "improved" by the mutation ... ... and replicate), human beings came to be ... ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading