Humans ARE still evolving....

[PHPlatonica]

Yes, I am deeply affected by your quirks. So affected, that it effects this responce.

But seriously, it distracts me - and you'd be much better off writing in good English; your point will be interpreted more quickly if there's less for my brain to get through.

<hr>
What are the selective pressures on modern man? Certainly around where I live, the people who reproduce the most (and at the youngest age!) are the dregs of society - the irony is killing me.

Hhmm.. alright.. I am Sorry it Offends you.
Have you ever been around some one with tourettes? I am Curious how you would behave. Really you seem like a very "Absolute" kind of person (man its hard to not hit the shift key wow lol, I have never played attention to that before.) But seriously, you seem to have created this interpretation of how every one should respond when you may be reading, and I wonder what makes you so special that you can't just adapt to my terrible quirk. As for the blood typing thing, did you read through the thread an find out what I was originally talking about? The way you project yourself is very Narcissistic. I just find it completely UN likely that you are much of anything better then any one else. so I can do my part and try not to "pronounce feeling" through capitalizing. But you should do your part, and ignore it. I am not hurting any one. because it gets on your nerves as nothing to do with me. think of all the things you could be missing because you let your self get tied up on a little aggravation. Don't you feel that is childish? so What IS your underlying problem?

 

[invert_nexus]

I am not hurting any one. because it gets on your nerves as nothing to do with me.

Actually, it just makes it very difficult to get through your posts. I've tried reading some of your posts, but don't seem to be able to make it very far before I give up and move along to something understandable.

What is interesting is that I've just realized why it is that excessive (or no) capitalization is so... confusing. I once thought that that it was because an emphasis is placed on words that are capitalized for no reason. Thus, reading your style of writing is like an excercise in emphasis. It gets to be too much after a short period of time.

But that's not it.
What it is that to understand someone's post, one often has to go back and reread sentences. To do this easily, we use a variety of clues to direct our eyes back to the beginning of the sentence. Punctuation, of course. But capitalization also. When overwhelmed with capitals, the eye is unable to easily go back. Too many choices and the control goes from subconscious to conscious which places the focus of the reader from what he is reading to how he is reading it. One is fractured from the experience to instead reflecting on the act of experiencing itself. Sartre's reflective cogito.

This manifests as annoyance and irritability because we don't come here to reflect on how we read posts (although such can be productive) but to read them.


You're hurting no one but yourself. That is, if you want your posts to be read and comprehended.

Of course, with your recent admission to Existabrent that you never understand what he is saying but only how he is saying it... perhaps you don't care that no one understands you?

(By the way, I wonder if you've considered that you hurt his feelings by that admission? He was here seeking approval. Wanting to be petted and fondled. Told that he's bright and that he has interesting things to say. He gathered about him a small coterie of people who he thought understood him. You shattered that... Of course, you might well be in private communication with him and know things about it I don't. I can only state how things appear from my vantage point. One must also bear in mind that I have only a passing knowledge of the affair as well. I certainly don't spend an inordinate amount of time 'observing' you or him. Just poke in from time to time to scratch my head.)


Ok.
Now that I've butted in with that....

I guess I better say something on topic.
(I like that line you used, Blue.)
<hr>
Topic:

That is a rather interesting study and makes sense when you think about it. The specific genes that are under selective pressure seem rather common sensical given the situation.

It has been debated long and hard whether or not humans are evolving or not.

The question has evem been considered whether the term should now be said to be 'domestication' rather than 'evolution' as man seems to have a singular control over his own breeding habits which most animals lack. However, I feel that this control is largely illusory and thus 'evolution' would still be the proper term.

There are animals that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. It is these animals which inspire the glints of this non-evolutionary status in humans. As we seem to have remained the same for millenia. Certainly the time span does not hold a candle to the shark or crocodile's evolutionary mudspinning, but we humans are rather humanocentric and thus perhaps our arrogance can be forgiven? Especially when tempered with the knowledge that there are those who are actively seeking to answer the question rather than staying with the age-old anecdote.

I'd like to see this type of study done with those animals. The shark. The crocodile. Are there others? The coelocanth, certainly. There must be other animals that have seemed to reach an evolutionary stand-still. Have they truly reached the pinnacle of their niche? Or do they also evolve, just in ways that are not so easily seen?

 

[PHPlatonica]

That makes perfect sense. I never realized some people put so much emphasis on reading like that. I was silly to take it that since I didn't, no one else did either. So on that note, Blue I DO apologize. The explanation given by invert nexus makes perfect sense. Any headaches I may have caused, I am sorry for. I will watch the way I type.

As for the blood typing, I was able to find what theories were on that. And it is interesting to know that the possibility that people have different blood types comes from genetic mutation and evolution. Which I thought this was the appropriate forum for. So if I was misunderstood before because of my capitalizing, I understand where that came from.

 

[Blue_UK]

Yes, I suppose I am a little 'absolute' (and also narcissistic). Certainly, you also raise a good point as to why I even bother to impose my views on others. Furthermore, it will be of no surprise to you that I take quickly to argument in person. I believe the answer to your question "what is the underlying problem", or rather "what is your motive" (in polite terms), is that I am compelled to comment on anything that I think I could improve. if I'm right you learn, if I'm wrong I learn.

I usually can't be bothered to fight out arguements to the end once it's obvious that there's communication failure (also on my part).

In this case, I was pointing out a tip that a lecturer of mine once told the class: the use of abbreviations and short hand when trying to get a point across will only present an obstacle to someone trying to understand you. Even if they're clever, their brain has to work that little bit harder to reconstruct your words - before even trying to extract meaning.

edit: it seems you have replied to Invert whilst I was typing this. I find it massively impressive that you adapted just like that. Next up... Duendy!

<hr>
It should be pointed out that these creatures in supposed 'evolutionary stand-still' are only labelled such for not undergoing obvious morphological changes. For example, they may well have considerably better immune systems than their ancestors, but remain visually similar due to geographic stability. So I agree, it would be interesting to see what lies beneath the skin.

I have just had an interesting thought: what if a person's right to reproduce is proportional to the amount of money they earn? What could mankind be, given enough generations?

 

[invert_nexus]

Even if they're clever, their brain has to work that little bit harder to reconstruct your words - before even trying to extract meaning.

Well said.

It should be pointed out that these creatures in supposed 'evolutionary stand-still' are only labelled such for not undergoing obvious morphological changes.

Exactly.
However, the sheer length of time involved is amazing. You'd think that even minor non-morphological changes would stack up over such a period of time and would spill over into the body plan.
Yet, they remain virtually unchanged.

I have just had an interesting thought: what if a person's right to reproduce is proportional to the amount of money they earn? What could mankind be, given enough generations?

That's an easy one:

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

The O group is the oldest of the blood groups. Back in the Stone Age, everyone would have been O ...

wait.... I don't really know very much on the subject, but what I thought I knew was that most of our blood types (with a difference of one or two, if so, if I'm not mistaken) exist even in apes, at least.

And if I've understood your doubt, that woulb be how come various blood types are more or less spread through most of human populations, instead of say, african populations having blood A, europeans B or A and B, asians A and C or B, and etc, as if accumulating new blood types through the dispersion out of Africa.

I think that would be explained simply if I was not mistaken in what I said first, that most of our blood types existed since our common ancestor with the other apes. Then all blood types would exist already in Africa, and subsequent changes in distribution could eventually occur through genetic drift/bottleneck effect, or eventually natural selection, as some argue (such as the blood type O providing some resistence to syphilis (I guess that was to syphilis), and so amerindians would have a strong prevalence of the this blood type.)

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

hum... apparently some bloody types (such as B) appeared more than once...

 

[PHPlatonica]

Blue, I am terribly sorry. I shouldn't have shouted off like that. In all honesty, I had never considered it. (the capitalizing) and I thought you were picking on me.. *blush* sorry. I AM more mature then that. I just did not realize that I was not only being "read" but also that any one would take the time TO hear me. And to be honest, this has taught me something, though a bit more harsh than I am used to. Hence where the anger came from. *blush*...

but ON TOPIC:
That is an interesting look. "what if a persons right to reproduce is proportional to the amount of money they earn."...

In some ways, it appears like that IS what we do. The more money one has, the better health care.
Genetic perfection is what it seems like we are already trying to do as a species. We try to get rid of illness and mutation. and economically, the more money you have, the more advanced you are in one area or another. Which shows status. I can see something like that happening. Where only the wealthy have the right to reproduce. Poorer people tend to run a higher risk of Depression, addiction, Malnutrition etc as apposed to Wealthier people. not to mention having the money to buy things needed like collage and knowledge.

it would be a very sad day if that would happen. But I am not so sure why it would be.

 

[invert_nexus]

In some ways, it appears like that IS what we do. The more money one has, the better health care.

Problem.
Better health care equates to a longer life span.
Evolution doesn't care about that. Unless you use that longer life span to sire more children.
The well-to-do have less offspring than the poor.
Therefore, it is the poor that drive evolution, by and large. Not the rich.

I just did not realize that I was not only being "read" but also that any one would take the time TO hear me.

Odd sentiment considering this is a discussion forum.
I wonder if it would be safe to extend this to thinking that you don't really "read" others or take the time to hear them? Do you just absorb the general emotive content of a post (a dangerous thing to do in text as emotions do not transfer in this medium. You'd most likely be reading your own emotions rather than the poster you're 'reading'.)

though a bit more harsh than I am used to.

If you're going to stick around here, then you'd better get used to it. We're a harsh old bunch around here. Bunch of cynical bastards.
....
We're only here to help though... *shark's grin*
"Come now, my child, if we were planning to harm you, do you think we'd be lurking here beside the path in the very darkest part of the forest?"

 

[PHPlatonica]

wait.... I don't really know very much on the subject, but what I thought I knew was that most of our blood types (with a difference of one or two, if so, if I'm not mistaken) exist even in apes, at least.

And if I've understood your doubt, that woulb be how come various blood types are more or less spread through most of human populations, instead of say, african populations having blood A, europeans B or A and B, asians A and C or B, and etc, as if accumulating new blood types through the dispersion out of Africa.

.)

What I read was a theory that these blood types actually came from a situational kind of mutation. when researching sickle cell Anemia it was found that the formation of these sickle cells actually were better at fending off malaria and tend to be prominent around a certain blood type. Also that the population most affected by sickle cell anemia had historical epidemics and mass out breaks of malaria.
So with the blood typing, or mutation, it looks as though it might have been natures way of immunization against serious outbreaks. These mutations didn't change back and have since been passed through generations. and I should really find that paper I read again so I can show you (LOL) it is really a neat theory. And it makes a lot of sense.

 

[PHPlatonica]

he he... I should have said that the Wealthy have quicker means to do that. More likely to have a choice as compared to a poorer person.

as for my odd sentiment. I am learning. Really.

I will Keep that in mind about you being harsh and cynical. But I don't see where the "old" part comes in. Majority of those I have spoken too are younger then I.

 

[Blue_UK]

We're a harsh old bunch around here. Bunch of cynical bastards.

So it's not just me then lashing out at every tom dick 'n' harry?!

Younger than you PHP? I'm very immature in some respects but switch into 'boring bastard logic mode' when I work. When a woman who I worked with every day for a year (but over the phone) met me in person for the first time she couldn't believe I was 23 - she thought I was 50 or something. Strange, seeing as my voice isn't that low or anything?! So roughly where do you fit in, in terms of age? (here's me being rude again!)

Yeah sickle cell, a peer at school I once attended had sickle cell 'trait' (you have to have double recessive for 'anemia'). He was always tired and very lazy. It's strange that such a compromise could exist; I guess 'back in the day' malaria was a pretty significant cause of death.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What I read was a theory that these blood types actually came from a situational kind of mutation. when researching sickle cell Anemia it was found that the formation of these sickle cells actually were better at fending off malaria and tend to be prominent around a certain blood type. Also that the population most affected by sickle cell anemia had historical epidemics and mass out breaks of malaria.
So with the blood typing, or mutation, it looks as though it might have been natures way of immunization against serious outbreaks. These mutations didn't change back and have since been passed through generations. and I should really find that paper I read again so I can show you (LOL) it is really a neat theory. And it makes a lot of sense.

It was first suggested in the 1940s. It's a classic example.

These adaptations to diseases seem to be local though

It is not clear how long these adaptations have been at work, but Weatherall suggests that they date back about 5,000 years. And studies by Weatherall and his colleagues and other teams have shown that mutations protecting against the disease differ between different populations. ‘It appears the mutations are local and are subject to local selection,’ he says. However, studies by his group in the the Pacific island group of Vanuatu reveal that similar patterns of mutations are found on some neighbouring islands, including some where malaria is not found. But this puzzling pattern fits with current views on how and when humans colonised these islands.

Researchers have also found that the frequency of mutations in the populations exposed to malaria vary and are often highest in areas where the disease is most prevalent, again showing the importance of local factors.

Two species of malaria are dominant in causing human disease: Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax. The two species coexist in many parts of the world but P. vivax is notably absent from West Africa. This observation led to the classic discovery that the erythrocytes of the Duffy blood group negative individuals, who predominate in this region, are resistant to invasion by P. vivax but not by other species of malaria parasite.

One of the issues addressed at the meeting was how fast evolution works. Weatherall's estimates suggest that the process can be very fast when the pressure is strong – it may take just decades for the proportion of people with innate resistance to increase in a case such as Aids, for example. This kind of rapid effect is also likely to be the cause of a large amount of human diversity, such as the existence of different blood groups. These involve different blood proteins and different patterns of susceptibility to disease.

review of a meeting on this topic
Curr Biol. 2003 Jan 8;13(1):R3-4. Evolution and disease. Williams N.

 

[PHPlatonica]

Blue, you are fine. *smile* I shouldn't be so sensitive. LOL. And at 32 you would think I would have realized that by now! HA so much for evolving with every one else. How ever I totally believe in respect. So I can accept when I have over reacted.
I talked to my mom about the way I typed. She laughed, and sent this to me. And I would like to share it, though it may not be the "appropriate" place, it is funny. but it applies. so.

Can you raed tihs? So far 128 people can.

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd
waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid,
aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it
dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the
olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in
the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can
sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn
mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a
wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was
ipmorantt!

So uh, who from here wrote this? hu! lol. too funny.

Any how, the Blood typing and mutations are really incredible. so much to learn about it. I think the theories sound pretty correct. they make sense.

 

[PHPlatonica]

It was first suggested in the 1940s. It's a classic example.

These adaptations to diseases seem to be local though




review of a meeting on this topic
Curr Biol. 2003 Jan 8;13(1):R3-4. Evolution and disease. Williams N.

Monkey your awesome

 

[Buckaroo Banzai]

I wonder if We can Use Genetic Splicing To alter our Genes So We Can see in the IF Frequency... What part of our Brain would Compensate and Form an Understanding to the New information? I think We could Some what easily alter our vision, but if We don't have the "right Soft Were" then I wonder if that means that we couldn't Read it. Like Sonar in Dolphins, or the acute sense of Smell in Dogs, they have shown areas of the brain they believe receive that information. So We would have to genetically Modify not only the main "event" but the Way it's perceived too.. Unless our Brains are Powerful enough to adapt. It's a Curious Question For sure!

I think that an eventual mutant in this sense would be totally lost, unless was a tremendoulsy lucky mix of mutations at the same time, or mutations that prepared the brain for the understanding of IR luckily and improbably anteceded the IR vision itself.

As we evolved from a long time without having IR as a information of the world, presumably our instincts are adapted to understand the world without images that would form from IR + "RGB" (?...). Even if the slow development in the childhood in humans was enough to give some understanding of this vision of the world unexpected by our instincts, it could probably be a problem as it would probably interfere with the rest of our visual perception.

The only vision of IR we have is artificially constructed by replacing shades of IR by RGB. I think that would be very unlikely to happen in a mutant; I think is more likely that it would see our RGB mixed with various degrees of an unimaginable color superposing or mixing, interferring in anyway, with the RGB vision. So it could mess vital information we (or specially, prehistoric humans or they recent ancestors) take from RGB, for exemple, if a certain fruit is suitable for eating. May be other mundane tasks that would be messed with IR, I guess.

Hunting could also have problems with a sudden appearence of IR vision. Even for nocturnal carnivores to which colored vision is not so important, such cats and wolves. Again, I think the problem is the result of a brain evolved to understand and react to a RGB or more or less greyscale world. IR, I think, would or could create "false objects", for our/their brain, like "tails" of harmless/meaningless heat, as a hunted animal runs away from the IR seeing predator. As this fake tail is a sight of the immediately recent past, it would be allways closer to the predator than the real solid body of the animal, but as they evolved to understand visible things as objetcs, without vision of intangible warm gas, they could interpret the latter as if was the earlier, frustrating many attempts of cathing its prey.

 

[PHPlatonica]

Right! that makes sense Danniel. I think a lot of the mutations must have come from environmental adaptation. And the Environment always changes, so species have to change as well, or die off.

 

[CharonZ]

The environmental factors usually do not affect mutation (rate). With the exceptions of certain mutagenic substances, radiation that is.
What you probably mean is that the environment affects whether mutations might get fixed in a population...

 

[PHPlatonica]

The environmental factors usually do not affect mutation (rate). With the exceptions of certain mutagenic substances, radiation that is.
What you probably mean is that the environment affects whether mutations might get fixed in a population...

yes *blush* that would be more what I mean.

 

[Tnerb]

i read that...
i'm no fondling petting freak.
damn