Glider Posted October 14, 2003 Posted October 14, 2003 YT2095 said in post #49 :ok, thnx, and sleep well It seems that evolution over a few thousand years is possible then! (I suspected such) It is, but not in the way I think you think it is. The aboriginals would not have developed larger molars and a more robust gut over a few thousand years, nor would everyone else have developed smaller teeth & guts in the same timespan. There is inherent in the species a degree of variance to begin with. Under tough dietary conditions, those with more robust teeth and guts would have done better, and were more likely to pass on the existing trait. Under less tough dietary conditions, the posession of more robust teeth and guts is less important as a factor. So, whilst statistically, the aboriginals have larger molars and guts (i.e. the population is distributed around a higher mean with respect to these measures), the western European (or American) population contains individuals with molars and guts as large as the aboriginals, but these populations have a broader distribution with respect to these measures (i.e. those traits have not been selected for in particular), so due to the lack of dietary (environmental) pressure, the original variance in molar/gut size is still broad. Whilst this does demonstrate evolution in progress (as it is), it is different from stating that a population has has developed a significant phenotypical difference (which takes millions of years), rather, the population distribution has narrowed around an existing difference which provided an advantage under certain environmental conditions.
phoenix Posted October 14, 2003 Posted October 14, 2003 aman said in post #50 :In these billions of people we got male females and female males and XXY's and all sorts of mutations so somebody will survive. We're almost as bad as cucarachas when it comes to stompin out all of us. Just aman Actually, genetic diversity of human beings is remarkably low compared to other species. The unusual sex chromosome combinations you mention are actually mostly sterile. That doesn't help survival of the species particularly. On the main topic of this thread: What is evolution? Are we talking about fixation of alleles or does change in allele frequency count as evolution, too? If the latter, it will be easy to observe even within centuries. Local or global - no matter. Think of selection for milk tolerance, or the relative explosion of, say, the Chinese as a proportion of the world's population. There are bound to be some unique alleles there that have different phenotypic effects. Regards, Phoenix PS: Maybe more important is the question - are we getting smarter? If not, then everything will slowly boil down to genetics. If we are getting smarter, genetic effects will become less important over time, and opportunities for learning will play an increasingly large role.
YT2095 Posted October 15, 2003 Author Posted October 15, 2003 Genetic diversity inbuilt into all of us....ok. so do I have the genes in me to make a black man/woman? as far as I know, there has never been any interracial breeding in my bloodline, so would I still have that gene(s) in me from "Adam and Eve" so to speak, or has it bred out of me? what would happen if lived in a hot country like Africa, for say a thousand generations, would my offspring become gradualy black as the melanin in black peoples skin helps them live in such a climate, or would we all remain white? same experiment again but still living in England for same time, would out of the blue at some time my many generations of offspring make a black child? the point being, would the hot or cold climate make a difference, or would it just happen anyway out of pure fluke?
Skye Posted October 15, 2003 Posted October 15, 2003 Skin colour is a bad example because it's complicated and not really well understood. We have the same locations on our genome, but different alleles at those locations. You don't have all the alleles for anyone else, because we are all genetic individuals, cept monozygotic twins.
YT2095 Posted October 15, 2003 Author Posted October 15, 2003 perhaps my understanding is a little simplistic, I understood skin color to be nothing more than a direct result of melanin in the skin that developed over many generations for folks that lived in hot contries, so the blacker the man the hotter or more UV light his/her ancestors lived in, and people with asian colors tan or Yellow as some see, get lots of hot weather, but not as much as an african guy does. and here in europe, not alot of sun and quite damp (especialy in england) we`re all white, furter north like sweden or denmark, very white also and mostly blonde hair too. it`s rare to see a black man with blue eyes or a swedish man with black curly hair and black skin. nature`s seen to it that we`re best matched to our surroundings it would seem. I don`t understand why it`s a bad example? as the only difference between me and a black guy is skin color really, and that`s only because where our ancestors lived for many generations, seems an ideal example to me, and simple too
Skye Posted October 15, 2003 Posted October 15, 2003 Well, it's complicated and not really well understood There are at least four genes (we don't know exactly) with several alleles at each (we don't know that either) and they might interact (who knows?). It's just hard to say much for sure, and unfortunately it's not very simple.
YT2095 Posted October 15, 2003 Author Posted October 15, 2003 hehheheheh, could it get more vague? (not your fault I understand) I guess there are other differences between myself and a black guy other than color, but I assume that`s still all to with the climate we evolved in, forgetting blood type etc... differences with blood can happen in families even. but essentialy there`s no difference. if I had a componenent that a black guy needed and the blood group were the same, it would work and he could use it succesfully for his natural life and vice versa. so genetics can`t be THAT different surely?
Skye Posted October 15, 2003 Posted October 15, 2003 That's really because of the nature of red blood cells. But yeah, races aren't that different. There are differences; some races don't have some alleles.
YT2095 Posted October 16, 2003 Author Posted October 16, 2003 is it the lack of a certain allele that cause sickle cell anemia? or many native american indians (males) don`t have body hair? that sort of thing?
Skye Posted October 16, 2003 Posted October 16, 2003 For sickle cell, it's a different allele that codes for a protein that stretches the red blood cells out into a long thin sickle shape when there is low oxygen. Then they clump up and...anemia. Dunno about the native americans, probably complicated again.
Sayonara Posted October 16, 2003 Posted October 16, 2003 Many caucasian/african/mediteranean/asian males don't have body hair, so it's obviously not a racial trait.
YT2095 Posted October 16, 2003 Author Posted October 16, 2003 can you back that up with a document or a proof please? I only know of the one race with this inherant trait naturaly occuring. Cheerz
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 I can back it up with people if that's any help. Unless you want to be more specific about the trait you are trying to discuss, this is a science forum you know.
YT2095 Posted October 17, 2003 Author Posted October 17, 2003 well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait. and so I was wondering if that would qualify as a genetic difference brought about by climate or foods or any other external factor.
alt_f13 Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Originally posted by fafalone As to shining IR light into your eye, it's the same type of energy so while there will be no visible reaction, the energy will effect the cells in your eye. I can attest to this. A long time ago, whilst sitting in front of the TV, this idea came to mind. So, I decided to test it by clicking the remote into my eye for about a minute. Lo and behold, my eye started to hurt. Would people who were able to see past our spectrum see more colors or simply see our colors distributed over a wider range of frequencies? I'm guessing more colors. Can't wait till ultra/infra computer monitors come out.
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 alt_f13 said in post #65 : I can attest to this. A long time ago, whilst sitting in front of the TV, this idea came to mind. So, I decided to test it by clicking the remote into my eye for about a minute. Lo and behold, my eye started to hurt. lmao
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 YT2095 said in post #59 :is it ... many native american indians (males) don`t have body hair? that sort of thing? YT2095 said in post #64 :well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait. See how they're different questions? Do you mean that they don't grow facial hair, or that they can't? Don't is probably social, can't is probably genetic.
atinymonkey Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 I can think of about billion people with a similar genetic trait. They are fairly hard to miss, they have there own country.
Sayonara Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 YT2095 said in post #68 :the latter You mean, that's what you meant to ask, or that's what you think is the case? lolol
YT2095 Posted October 17, 2003 Author Posted October 17, 2003 YT2095 said in post #64 :well quite simply, the native americal indian males don`t grow facial hair for some reason, I don`t know of any other race with this trait. and so I was wondering if that would qualify as a genetic difference brought about by climate or foods or any other external factor. is what I meant to ask.
atinymonkey Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Like the opposite to the Vikings? Grew beards all day long, they did. Or having genetic predisposition to shave?
Skye Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 I remember reading as a kid those native to the north west of the US used bone tweezers to pluck out their facial hair. Ouch.
YT2095 Posted November 2, 2003 Author Posted November 2, 2003 yada yada yada *sigh* ok here`s one for ya! a couple hundred years ago Britons were considerably shorter (in height) than they are now, you only have to go into Shakespeares house in Stratford Uopn Avon to see how small the door sizes were, or the Manor House in West Bromwich west midlands to see this, so quite clearly, within a short space of time evolution has us Britons alot taller by at least 6+ inches(avg), I have to duck to walk through these doors and I`m only 5 foot 9! and NO it`s wasn`t done for the sake of keeping valuable heat in the homes, they WERE actualy that small! explain that one!
Skye Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 They had alot less food at times, especially high protein foods and fruits. There was much more widespread diseases, which taxes the energy available. Children also worked on top of this, child labour was still being used in industry in the last 100 years or so.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now