Paralith

Thanks for the compliments, Lance. And of course, there was no deliberation when it came to molding social behaviors. If I said so then I did not mean to. It was in males' reproductive interest to set cultural values in a certain way, so those who did so were more successful. That is all. It was most certainly not a conscious effort.

By this logic, I see no reason why you should discount bees. There is just as great a variety in the wasp and bee groups as there are in the ant and termite groups. I myself have read research done on a wasp species whose individuals can choose between reproducing on their own or living in a colony. Anyhow, if all the OP wanted to know is if other animals besides humans can carry out activities that they know could and/or will cause their own death, then the answer is of course yes. If the OP wanted to know if other animals commit suicide for all the same reasons as humans do, then I would say the answer is mostly no. Humans have committed suicide for causes common in the animal world, such as defense of offspring or kin or perceived kin (e.g. king and country). However, humans also commit suicide not to aid their kin, but with the sole and highly intentional purpose of ending their own misery. Other animals may die from side-effects of stress and depression, but they are not doing so because they know it will cause them to die and that's what they want. The only animals suggested with any evidence in this thread that may kill themselves for these reasons are dolphins/whales and elephants. But even for both these examples, there is equal evidence to suggest that there are other reasons for their seemingly suicidal behavior.

I don't think this is politically incorrect, but I do think it is incorrect to call what is merely a slight genetic divergence actual speciation. If it were correct, then we'd have to say that speciation is occurring in many species all over the world. Slight genetic variations in subpopulations have the potential to lead to speciation, but are not events of speciation themselves. As has been pointed out several times, what is thought of as human "races" are nowhere near reproductively isolated enough at this point for any "race" to seriously begin to speciate away from other humans. Long story short: human races are not incipiently speciating sub-populations. They could be one day, but are not right now.

Well, as both one of the few women at SFN and an aspiring behavioral ecologist, I suppose it's time that I gave my two cents. I haven't said much up to this point because, as INow says, and as has been established in countless threads addressing intelligence in one way or another, until we find a good definition for intelligence we'll never really be able to answer this question. And a good definition for intelligence seems to be beyond the current state of knowledge about the brain at this point in time. (My suspicion is, though, that human men and women probably do not differ much at all in pure intelligence.) However, as others have said, there are a great many differences between the way men and women think and view the world; that I can attest to both as a woman and as a researcher who is particularly interested in exploring these differences and how they evolved. I find it interesting that thedarkshade says that "men rule because of their natural advantage." I will agree that the natural state for us humans and our ancestors is patriarchy - males are the dominant gender. This is also the case in chimpanzees. As to why males are the dominant gender, and not females (as is the case in bonobos, who are as equally related to us as chimpanzees are), I think the exact factors leading to this are as yet unknown. In any case, human men have a long history of dominance of the social group. They have been the main effectors of the formation of cultural rules and traditions. And many of these rules are related to the strict control of women. Unlike most animal species, including our closest primate relatives, males contribute little to parental care once their offspring are born. Their primary role in reproduction is competition for mate and deposition of sperm, and little more. This is not the case in humans, likely because of how extremely helpless human children are when they are born, and the great degree of care they need from both parents in order to have a chance at survival - something else that is relatively uncommon in the animal world. However, if men are going to put such a great degree of time and energy into every single one of their offspring, they need to be especially sure that the offspring is actually theirs, and not some other competing males' that they are being tricked into raising for him. To waste so many resources on offspring that are not their own is highly detrimental to their reproductive success. So most traditional cultures lean towards the strict control of women and their behavior. This is compounded by the fact that humans are philopatric - when females reach breeding age, they leave their natal group to find a new one. When males reach breeding age, they stay in their natal group, surrounded by their kin. And they all have interest in working together to control their mates and avoid cuckoldry. In short, I believe that a large reason for why, culturally speaking, "men rule" today, is because they've skewed human culture to ensure their rule and control. It is a reproductively successful tactic and they have become quite good at it - cooperative, goal oriented behavior and social maneuvering are behaviors that males tend to excel in. And while you could point to other differences in the way men and women think to explain why, perhaps, women are less prevalent in science and technology and even online science forums, I think it is largely due to a cultural belief that these kinds of things are male things. That males ought to be exploring and learning and gaining new ground while females ought to be concerned with home and family. I doubt that any real difference in ability is causing this trend. I also say this because of the gender ratio at the biomedical research lab where I currently work. It is at least half women, if not more so. My own lab group consists of six women and no men at all. Many of them are from other countries, and one of my Indian female co-workers actually expressed surprise when I commented on how unusual our lab was for having so many women in it. Apparently, in India, there are actually more women in this field than men. I don't know how accurate that is, but the fact that people from India think that is the case says something in itself. As time goes on and cultural ideals slowly change, more and more women are getting into these fields that are currently dominated by men. I'd imagine that in the future, the idea that men could be better and/or more intelligent than women will become easily disprovable.

Another option is going to a large college with good bio and comp programs that is physically near by to an art college - then you could potentially dual enroll in the two colleges. Some universities even offer collaborative programs in that situation. Haha. I can't blame you. However, I would still recommend you at least visit the place and get a feel for it. The programs really are quite good and do have the combinations you're looking for. Plus, in the spring and summer, it's gorgeous. Lots and lots of outdoorsy things to do.

I'd just like to add that, as a woman, knowing that you've done stuff with guys before is fine. Like the others have said, it's nothing to get all upset about. I have a friend who's currently in a serious relationship with a guy who used to fool around with both women and other men. That fact hasn't caused them one bit of trouble dating-wise.

Sounds like you need to go to a relatively large college that offers a wide variety of programs. That's what I needed, too, when I went to undergrad, as I was quite unsure of which of my multiple interests I would ultimately follow. I went to the University of Michigan, which I can say for sure has a very good bio program, with a lot of research opportunities - I worked in two evolutionary genetics labs there. I would highly recommend you get actual research experience as early as you can, as that will help you decide if you'll truly enjoy doing that kind of work for your career. It was instrumental for me when it came to choosing my career. Also, the benefit of working in research labs is that they are often very flexible, so it would give you a little more freedom to do something additional on the side. My boyfriend, who works for Microsoft and also went to U of M, can say for sure that they also have a very good computer sciences program. They also have an art school, and I'm pretty sure you can dual enroll / dual major in both the art school and the lit&sci school (where the bio and comp sci are). But I notice that you are a Cali kid, and winters in Michigan can be quite harsh. So keep that in mind. But it is a great school. Usually you aren't called a professional in anything until you get paid to do it. That's what it really means. A BA (Bachelor of Arts) in photography may help you become a professional but it most certainly doesn't mean you already are one.

any divergence between populations of a species has the potential to lead to eventual speciation given that gene flow between them is blocked long enough. in humans, even a cultural trend could serve to block gene flow, if for example it was taboo to have children with anyone outside of the group.

Yes. The theory goes that only self aware animals understand that when they look in a mirror, they're looking at themselves. It's done by putting a spot of paint or some other mark on the animal when they're not aware of it and where they normally can't see it, such as on their forehead. When they see themselves in front of a mirror with this mark, self aware animals should pay particular attention to and/or touch the mark on their body, wondering where it came from and/or what it is. Chimps, elephants, and I think dolphins have passed this test, as far as I know. Of course, with many animals, it could be hard to tell if they're really noticing the mark or not. This is also assuming that a self aware animal necessarily understands how mirrors work.

Old elephants stop eating because they no longer have teeth. Elephants have a peculiar system of tooth growth where for every two teeth they lose, only one larger tooth grows back. Eventually they are left with one large tooth which will also get ground down and fall out. After this, they starve to death.

I'd have to disagree with you there. As INow said, at the current point in time, we cannot define consciousness, and we cannot be sure whether it exists in other animals in a similar manner to the way it exists in humans. But this is because, at the current point in time, the brain, the way it is formed, and the way it functions, are largely unknown to us. However, this is rapidly changing. And the more we learn, the faster we'll learn more. One day these questions will be answerable. We just don't have the knowledge available right now to do so. Most people do. Most humans look for ways to distinguish themselves from the rest of life on this planet, which in my opinion, is a rather useless pastime. I highly doubt that we humans possess any characteristic that is not present to some degree or another in other life that exists or has existed on earth. Thedarkshade clearly disagrees with this. I have, however, recently read about some behavioral studies that attempt to test for a theory of mind in non-human primates, which is a a type of knowing that people excel in. But, not surprisingly, the results are hard to interpret with any certainty and are hardly consistent. They do seem to suggest, though, that people probably do have a higher degree of consciousness than primates. I know of no such tests done on dolphins or elephants, which would be my other non-human candidate for similar-to-human consciousness.

I do, to a great degree. The best hypothesis for a live whale beaching itself is disorientation, brought on by sickness, injury, old age, or what have you. A group of whales beaching themselves are probably following a disoriented pod leader. While I agree that dolphins and elephants are probably the only non-human animals that may be able to intentionally kill themselves, I think it would be extremely rare in the wild. Most other animals do not attempt to kill themselves for the sake of dying, as humans do; they do it in defense, or captive animals become stressed and depressed and through some byproduct of that condition, i.e. not eating well, they die.

Here you are, Fred. Have a go at this magical mysterious undefinable thing. Natural selection is a process. Processes don't "sit around." Evolution is a process, not a conscious entity. Evolution doesn't "know" anything. Both you and others in this thread have previously exhibited a quite decent understanding of how natural selection works. Your asking this question is downright ridiculous at this point. It's the scientific method, Fred. Do methods do things all by themselves? No more than processes think or sit around. I'm going to have to add my voice to moo's distaste with your discussion methods, Fred. You only respond to specific points within a person's posts that you feel like responding to, and then ask the same questions again that we already answered, but you just didn't feel like paying attention to the answers at the time. Then you ask ridiculous questions like, "Does the scientific method do things by itself?" that are things a two year old child would ask. Though considering you blatantly ignored moo's much more polite requests, I don't know why I'm even wasting my proverbial breath.

Evolution began when the next generation was not exactly the same as the generation that came before it, since evolution is simply change. As the exact nature of the very first life is still inconclusive, I do not know if, perhaps, the very first replication was EXACT replication, or if even in that very first replication so too did the first replication error of mutation creep in, creating the very first change and the very first instance of evolution. And yes, the begining of life and the first instance of evolution were of course, at the very least, closely timed events. I never said otherwise. It looks circular because you asked a question about a statement that is, in itself, the answer to the question. Let's think about the first self-replicating molecules, that formed in a spontaneous chemical reaction. The structure of one kind of molecule is such that it can maintain its shape in water very well. The structure of another kind of molecule is such that its shape is not stable when in water. That first molecule will be able to self-replicate better. You might even say that a kind of proto-natural selection has just taken place. The structure of the first molecule was such that it was able to achieve replication better then the second molecule in the environment of water. And from there on it went until there was life.

From my post #77: The exact definition of evolution is simply a change in the gene frequency of a population. This can happen via random mutation and genetic drift, which by no means guarantee a more "efficient" species. From my post #81: I said evolution is only change - whether or not that change is good or bad is irrelevant. That change can come about through mechanisms that are not related to the ability to reproduce or survive, and can therefore yield less "efficient" organisms. From my post #98: No, the allele can be lost simply through chance. This is much more likely to happen in small populations of course, but it can happen that the dice fell in such a way that none of the offspring of the next generation received that particular allele, and so it is lost from the population. Of course alleles can be lost environmentally, but they can be lost this way also, and through a random mutation that renders the gene non-functional, or through a natural disaster that kills all the individuals with that one allele, etc. So, to clarify: Other mechanisms of evolution beyond natural selection include mutation, genetic drift, and one I did not mention before, sexual selection. All these will induce a change in the population's gene pool from one generation to the next. From my post #90: Yes, once life began, and began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also. … Evolution is the description of a change. From my post #81: What you're talking about is not evolution but natural selection, which is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. And what is the "selector" in natural selection? It's the environment a given animal lives in. The circumstances of that environment (which most certainly includes other organisms) are such that unfit individuals die and do not leave offspring behind. It is not the function or the purpose of the environment to do so; it is just a property of the environment. Natural selection has no more plan or purpose or reason to exist than do dirt and water - which is none. Because if any of their ancestors that came before them did not, then they died, or at the very least did not reproduce as successfully as others. I mean, why make more of yourself? What is the purpose for that? The very first organisms, the first protocells - they made more of themselves. They reproduced. Why? What is the point of doing that? Life exists today because that's what they did. But there's no good reason for why they did.

The idea of Goa'uld is an interesting one, but no organism on this planet inherits learned behaviors. I bolded that one sentence of yours because it's technically incorrect. Behaviors that are learned in one organism's lifetime are not heritable - they cannot be passed on to the offspring genetically. Instinctive behaviors are completely genetic - and are usually for behaviors where the cost of getting it wrong is very high. For example, a predatory bird may instinctively avoid a certain poisonous snake, even if it has never seen it before in its life. This is because any of its ancestors that did try to eat that snake almost invariably died. There was no chance to learn anything - make the mistake once and you're toast. But instincts are inflexible. That one bird will not change that behavior throughout its lifetime no matter how its environment or experiences change. So behaviors that are learned are ones where where you won't suffer significant reproductive loss during the learning curve, and where flexibility is required. This way, even if the environments change between or within generations, each cohort will still be able to learn what is best suited for the particular situation, and to change their behavior during their lifetime if it becomes necessary. This is clearly a very adaptive trait. So the ability to learn is inherited, but not the behaviors themselves that are learned. So I guess what I'm saying is, your question is interesting, but unrelated to life on Earth. None of it operates that way here. I'm not even sure the complex and abstract concepts/ideas that PhDs have stored in their brain could even be coded for genetically.

answering as a person from subpopulation B: No, high school did not prepare me well enough. I got barely enough exposure to biology to keep me semi-interested in it, and it wasn't until my junior year in college, after taking several advanced/grad level courses and participating in research with a professor that I realized I wanted to spend my life doing biology research. It took that long to get me to a point where I found concepts that were truly interesting and invigorating to me. They way it was presented to me in high school, and even in the lower level bio classes at college, didn't give me any significant insight into the possibilities waiting out in the field. I needed those grad level classes way back in high school. There is nothing in the content of these classes that I could not have handled back then, and I could have gotten a much better head start. That's how I feel about it.

Ok. Purposive of what? What is the purpose of that drive? What are you trying to say with this? That now you don't think individual lifeforms can be purposeful?

Natural selection produces organisms adapted to their environment. Other mechanisms of evolution do not. Why do you believe that the process that changes a population of purposive life forms must in itself be purposeful? Our purpose as organisms is to create as many successful progeny as possible. What is the purpose in creating so many successful progeny? To spread certain genes in the population. What is the purpose of spreading those genes in the population? Why is this so necessary? And no, the purpose is not to create better adapted organisms. Better adapted organisms arise because they are the ones that are able to create the most progeny in a given environment. But the original drive to have progeny, to replicate parts of yourself - where is the purpose in that? There is none. The process that leads to the changing of a population of purposive individuals does not have to be purposeful itself.

No, the allele can be lost simply through chance. This is much more likely to happen in small populations of course, but it can happen that the dice fell in such a way that none of the offspring of the next generation received that particular allele, and so it is lost from the population. Of course alleles can be lost environmentally, but they can be lost this way also, and through a random mutation that renders the gene non-functional, or through a natural disaster that kills all the individuals with that one allele, etc.

Sorry, dichotomy, but that's natural selection again. Biological evolution by itself is not necessarily advantageous. Genetic drift, for instance, can cause the loss of advantageous alleles simply through chance. This loss is still considered evolution. With that, I agree. If that's what I seem to imply then I apologize. Evolution should be thought of as a property of life. Life doesn't start or create evolution; evolution happens when life reproduces non-clonally. An appropriate analogy would be yourself; when you as an embryo first formed, you began to grow. Growth is a property you as an organism have, at least for the first part of your life. That doesn't mean you somehow begot or created growth. It's just what you do. Nor can you be considered equal to growth, as life cannot be considered equal to evolution.

I know. I do the same thing. But then I clarify why I'm putting that word in quotation marks, to make sure that I am understood correctly. You did not. I invited you to describe to me what different meaning you might have for the word begets. You've implied that your meaning is different but have yet to tell me exactly how. I don't need your permission to reach my own conclusions, but I need your help to correctly understand yours. I subsequently edited my post once I saw your convenient edit. I guess you didn't see it. As I think INow has said before, you're changing the goalposts. To say "evolution begets life" and "evolution and life began simultaneously" are two very different things. Yes, once life began, and began to replicate in such a fashion that the members of the next generation are not always exact genetic copies of the first generation, evolution began also. I never said anything to the contrary. Only that evolution could not exist prior to life - which is what you implied by saying evolution "begets" life, quotation marks or not. To make, to sire, to cause, to get from it - it all requires that evolution existed prior to life. But just because two things begin at the same time most certainly does not mean they are somehow the same thing. Evolution is the description of a change. This is most certainly a different entity from a changing, material organism.

The definition of begets: To father, to sire; to cause to exist, to produce. Biological evolution did not cause life to exist. In order to do so biological evolution must have existed before life existed. As a process that happens to life, this is impossible. It only began once organisms capable of begetting more organisms began to exist. The forms that life takes are the result of the process of evolution. But life itself did not come into existence because of biological evolution. The initial formation of life even has its own field of abiogenesis, a field separate and distinct from evolution because of this very fact. You can make witty little remarks about repeating yourself and psychiatric wards as much as you want. That doesn't change the fact that the statement you are positing as true is inherently false. Unless your definition of the words in your statement are different than what I think they are. If that is so, please tell me. Saying that "life and evolution began simultaneously" is a far different statement from "evolution begets life." Which one is it that you are actually trying to defend?

What did I say, Fred? I said evolution is only change - whether or not that change is good or bad is irrelevant. That change can come about through mechanisms that are not related to the ability to reproduce or survive, and can therefore yield less "efficient" organisms. What you're talking about is not evolution but natural selection, which is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. And what is the "selector" in natural selection? It's the environment a given animal lives in. The circumstances of that environment (which most certainly includes other organisms) are such that unfit individuals die and do not leave offspring behind. It is not the function or the purpose of the environment to do so; it is just a property of the environment. Natural selection has no more plan or purpose or reason to exist than do dirt and water - which is none. DNA represents currently existing plans for an organism. Let's say that circumstances are such that this organism has DNA composition that is different than its parents - through chromosome recombination, or a mutation, what have you. That individual's parents may have been technically more efficient than the individual, but if that individual is still more reproductively successful than other individuals of its species, its genes will get spread on regardless. Wrong. Evolution is a process that happens to life. Evolution did not occur before life existed. Let me state the definition yet again: a change in the gene frequencies of a population. Evolution can't happen until there are reproducing populations. The same for natural selection. Natural selection is the differential survival of organisms. Selection of organisms can't happen until you have organisms to select from.

I'm sorry Fred, but INow is right and you are incorrect in saying that the purpose , if by "purpose" you mean "function," of evolution is to make organisms more "efficient." One of the possible outcomes of evolution, and the outcome of natural selection, does make organisms more "efficient" - more successful in reproducing in their environment. The exact definition of evolution is simply a change in the gene frequency of a population. This can happen via random mutation and genetic drift, which by no means guarantee a more "efficient" species. Evolution does not have a function. It does not have a predesigned plan. It is merely the description of a naturally occurring, emergent process. And I've been putting efficient in quotation marks because the word efficient implies a kind of streamlining and editing, looking back at previous editions and making changes to make something optimal. Evolution via natural selection does not function this way. There are limitations to the changes it can make, and it does not look back on what worked or didn't work in the past. It only "cares" about what, right now, makes for the most healthy offspring. If that means awkwardly working around/with a previously existing set of characteristics, then so be it. The giraffe has a blood vessel that starts in the chest area, loops all the way up its neck and back down again, for no reason other than the fact that this vessel originally evolved in shorter necked animals, and this elongation has so far not bestowed any reproductive detriment to the giraffe species. It would most certainly be more efficient overall to not bother growing that giant useless vessel, but as long as it doesn't cause any given individual to have more or less successful offspring than another, it will stay. I repeat, individual organisms can have purpose, can have intentional and goal oriented behaviors. But evolution is NOT an intentional, goal oriented motor of change. It is an emergent process.