Researchers Say Human Brain is Still Evolving

Oleg Alexandrov writes "Two genes involved in determining the size of the human brain have undergone substantial evolution in the last 60,000 years, researchers say, suggesting that the brain is still undergoing rapid evolution. The discovery adds further weight to the view that human evolution is still a work in progress, since previous instances of recent genetic change have come to light in genes that defend against disease and confer the ability to digest milk in adulthood."

Comments

It's remarkable how wrong this is

[nokilli]

First off, it's hard to see *any* species as being in anything other than a state of evolution. To suggest otherwise implies a superficial understand of what evolution is about.

That being said, it's conceivable that we're at the point where the human brain is the exception to the above. After all, what has been the driving force behind the evolution of the brain? Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail.

This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

I can't believe how often highly educated people will pontificate on this subject, and get it wrong. Yes, usually the media is to blame -- science reporting is notoriously bad -- but that does not appear to be the case here.

Ironic that they should be so wrong on this of all subjects.
--
You didn't know.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CDMA_Demo]

First off, it's hard to see *any* species as being in anything other than a state of evolution. To suggest otherwise implies a superficial understand of what evolution is about.

I beg to differ. With the current state of affairs in several countries and the way people in the east are connected to what the west does, I propose that we consider not only the human brain, but the human species itself as an exception. We are undergoing convolution instead of evolution. Besides, human evolution is not a safe subject in some countries anymore...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods on crack: why was this modded flamebait???

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...but stupid people still reproduce...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[John Hawks]

Well, it sure might look that way, but these genes strongly suggest that something related to cognition was under strong selection throughout history.

One of the two genes, ASPM, appears to have come under selection only 5800 years ago; but it is now at around 20 percent, with a frequency of near 50 percent in some Near Eastern populations. Whatever this allele does, it had a selective advantage of more than 5 percent. They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be.

That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.

The submission doesn't mention the most problematic part: These alleles are high frequency in some populations, but absent or low frequency in others -- suggesting there may be adaptive differences in the brain among human populations. From my weblog post:

Geneticists are increasingly finding genetic variants that affect behavior. Several of these variants are now known to vary in frequency in different human populations. These alleles are two; the 7r allele of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene is another that influences ADD/ADHD susceptibility (Harpending and Cochran 2002). The selective structure underlying DRD4 variation may be frequency-dependent, with different alleles correlating with alternative behavioral strategies that pose greater or lesser advantages in some populations. It is not clear whether such a mechanism is true of ASPM and Microcephalin; the selected alleles have risen to such high frequencies in some populations that it seems they are not mere alternatives; they are unilaterally advantageous -- at least where they have become common already.

--John

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Steve Franklin]

What? George Bush didn't reproduce?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[SQL Error]

One of the two genes, ASPM, appears to have come under selection only 5800 years ago; but it is now at around 20 percent, with a frequency of near 50 percent in some Near Eastern populations. Whatever this allele does, it had a selective advantage of more than 5 percent.

It's the morning coffee gene!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Aggressiva]

Must be difficult to live with the originality that must ooze from your very pores..

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[nokilli]

They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be.

Deference to authority perhaps? The gene that enables groupthink, which, today seems to be sending us into the abyss but thousands of years ago meant the difference between one tribe surviving another?

The whole business with the alleles and DRD4, I don't know anything about that. I just found the way that the conclusion was stated here to be clumsy. Rather than talk about the brain still evolving, a more accurate headline might be "Path of human brain's evolution identified".

The coverage evolution has received of late has been spooky. I'm seeing all kinds of signs that the MSM is trying to accommodate "intelligent design", an agenda that is served by implying that human evolution was thought to have stopped somehow.

Now that I'm looking at it again, maybe it is another case of bad reporting.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

The solution to this problem is obvious.... only let the people with an IQ above X have sex :D

If you mod me down or reply negatively, you lose sex priveledges too :D

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL, manic modding..

Agreed. The people who couldn't digest milk likely died before reproducing. The people unable to fight disease likely died before reproducing.

Same as:
If a western population (say, located somewhere in the US) was suddenly exposed to a large quantity of human waste (AVLC -very large culture), the bacteria that ought be most successful would likely have a higher then normal tolerance to modern forms of fighting disease.

Weird eh?

Someone with a few brain cells should look at what flu-shots are doing. My 'guesses' all point to some very bad things for future generations of people. It's spooky shit what Darwin was edging up on (heh and a great equalizer for all warfare).

BTW: I still think an attack would happened because of our need to secure a steady oil supply. We've done some very bad things to achieve that

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural selection not only works at the reproduce/not reproduce level. If smart people tend to mate with smart people, their offspring will tend to be even smarter, thus continuing evolution.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[dumeinst]

You think it's funny, but there ought to be some standard for parenthood. While regulating people's right to reproduce may not sit very well with some (myself included), I can't help thinking that a lot of social ills might be benefited.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[geeber]

In other news, mountains continue to erode.

Film at eleven.

Sheesh.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[uncoveror]

Cute little joke, but eugenics is a debunked pseudo-science. It did not produce supermen or a master race in 19th century America, or The Third Reich. Two idiots can produce a genius child. Two geniuses can produce an idiot child. Two parents born blind can produce sighted children. An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Tony Hoyle]

If I was world dictator I'd have enforced sterilisation at birth and parent licenses allocated after rigorous testing.

That's probably why I should never be allowed any power...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[nokilli]

That steers us into an ugly subject, because then what eventually happens is that smart people only mate with other smart people, which by definition introduces a new species, doesn't it?

That there are people who possess attributes that yield superior results isn't in dispute, nor that their can be groupings of such people.

I think we have to remember that when we're talking about the human race, the people you see making movies or running dotcoms aren't what we're talking about. We're talking about the people on line at the DMV.

It's a pretty diverse group, and barring medical reasons, all get fed, all get to reproduce. Indeed, IIRC the higher your education, the less children you end up having.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[JeffSh]

Eugenics was only a single generation (or perhaps 2 generations) of testing. breeding favorable traits (or any trait) requires many many generations.

to see this, just look at dog breeds.

the same could easily be done with humans, certainly.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

"An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects."

I like how that's totally a fact you can back up with data from the local library's copy of "kids of athletes and models - 2005 edition".

But seriously, although eugenics does not sit well with me or anyone most likely, and while your logic is correct - two idiots can breed a genius, I would wager statistics would prove that people with higher educations breed people who contribute more to society, and it probably helps to be more "well off", too.

Before I get flamed to death, I am definitely not advocating birth control in this sense (or eugenics) - the key is in the education, which brings with it the wealth.

To me its always been a shame that one of the most promising tools for improving society gets the shaft over and over again... Not to get offtopic, but its a shame that probably more than half the teachers in our institutions should not be teachers, and that the ones who should teach out of a desire to teach and make a difference (rather than for the small compensation) - most everyone has that really good teacher they remember that really made a difference.

To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more, and they should be paid more, too. The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[aussie_a]

An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects.

Which goes to show they aren't superior breeding stock. It was probably the bulemia and drugs that caused the problems.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[king-manic]

This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

There is a small mistake in your logic, you assume that when they refer to intelligent they mean alan turing, and when they refer to lower intelligence they mean some red neck white trash trailer park family. The average IQ is slowly rising because our world is so complicated now it selects against those who can't cope. This knocks the truly inept out of the gene pool. And and while geniuses lke Turing didn't reproduce (he was gay), many above average individuals are reproducing and their kids survive to reproduce as well.

People of lower inteligence and high intelligence also tend to correlate to low income and high income. While the high incomes reproduce sparsly, they tend to have children that also have children. In the lower income bracket, many children are had but those who can't cope die. Statistically this is culling the lower end of the IQ scale very quickly.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[rtb61]

It is a sucky idea, but all the horse, cattle and especially the sheep breeders (four and two legged variaties) would disagree with you (they make money proving you wrong every day).

The transition from nomadic to todays society was an excersize in eugenics (if you desired your freedom to much the autocrats either enslaved or executed you and it has been going on for thousands of years).

The various lust enraged conquerors through out the ages have done their best to breed the desire for freedom out of humanity (why is Alexander great and Attila a barbarian. The only difference has been the marketing since their death). The various relgions have also done their level best to employ eugenics to breed into the human race a need for the deity that they deem appropriate. In history don't believe or at least profess the belief and you were made to suffer (being burnt at the stake tends to limit your oppurtunities for breeding).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Skreems]

Yeah, but nobody really practiced it for long enough to EXPECT to see results, either. Yes, two geniuses can produce an idiot child, but the PROBABILITY is that they will not. When you let the process run over several generations, you'll start to see a higher percentage of geniuses being born than if you didn't have the program, and the more generations you go, the stronger the selected traits become.

You can't really call it a "debunked pseudo-science" when it takes several hundred years to show real results, and it ran for what, maybe 40 years total?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

What would be interesting (albeit scary) is to carry out virtual eugenics... see what could be in 10 generations, 30, 50, etc, by playing with a few sets of DNA. If nothing else it might shed some light on genetic disease propagation?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[magarity]

there ought to be some standard for parenthood
 
While I'm glad I'm an Alpha, I clearly see the need for Gammas and Deltas. And for them to be in greater numbers than the Alphas and Betas. That reminds me; trash truck comes tomorrow AM...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdork is full of snotty, elitist, arrogant hypocritical dickheads. I see many comments saying "stupid people aren't selected out anymore." Look at yourselves, pathetic losers - years ago your scrawy, pale, uncoordinated lameass would have gotten eaten the minute you set foot outside of hiding in your parents' cave. Unless big dumb Ug was there with a club to protect you (but he's usually away off getting meat for the table, unlike your lazy, unproductive, pontificating ass).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: Do not assume "evolution" automatically means "getting smarter". Species evolve by those organisms which can procreate most effectively.

In a situation like human civilization, evolution still happens: people who raise lots of kids will have spread their genes more so than those who don't. This doesn't necessarily mean people are evolving to be smarter.

It just means people are evolving to be Mormons. :)

Furthermore, anything which involves social interactions is much too complicated to simplify so nonchalantly. Think of how many factors go into why one person would have lots of kids, while another has none, while another dies before reproducing.

Oh wait, I forgot that everyone on Slashdot Knows Everything About Everything.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[AJWM]

Ah, but perhaps the actual result of these tyrant-imposed breeding exercises was that those smart enough to avoid them (either by being elsewhere or by faking whatever qualities the tyrant preferred) continued to reproduce.

Intelligence coupled with situational awareness confers a considerable survival advantage - the best way to survive anything is to be somewhere else when it happens.

(Of course intelligence alone doesn't guarantee reproduction -- as countless slashdotters can attest ;-)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[king-manic]

You think it's funny, but there ought to be some standard for parenthood. While regulating people's right to reproduce may not sit very well with some (myself included), I can't help thinking that a lot of social ills might be benefited.

That just another selecting factor, but who is to say any ones criteria is better for our long term fitness? Being a genius isn't exactly good for your health, a lot of them die young, a lot of them turn out to be gay, insanity is common as well. Because being a Genius is a mutant allele and occurs often in lines with a bad corrective mechanism (high mutation rate). 1/2 of all geniuses are left handed while only 1/3 of the rest of us our, supporting the idea that it occurs in lines more prone to mutations. While havign a genius around once in a while is good (einstien) having us all be genius would be bad (if we were all alan turings, the human race woudl end because we would all be gay).

The best thing for human fitness is to have a diverse rance of genotypes/phenotypes and let the future do the selecting, that way we aren't backing the wrong horse.

Lets say the germans won WWII and there was a massive selective factor for blonde hair blue eyes caucasians, now fast forward 3000 years and we're all blonde and blue eyed and suddenly by some absurd twist of fate a alien species arive that only eats thigns with blonde hair and blue eyes. now we're fucked. Absurd yes, but variations on this is what causes exstinction. Over specialize, lack diversity, and you invite disaster. Generalize or diversify and while you aren't using your resources 100% efficiently (supporting those with lower fitness) you have a better ability to flow aroudn changes in selective factors.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[i41Overlord]

That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.

Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it. They might lack the genes to effectively compete in modern society, but it doesn't matter as long as you're paying for their house, food, healthcare, and kids.

Letting the weakest die off might seem un-pc and mean in the short term, but in the long term it's helping the human race.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[drgonzo59]

Check with your friend Hitler on that, already been done. In Nazi Germany during a certain period the state had the right to euthanize "unfit" babies and sterilize "unfit" adults.

Also, what you might not know, and what has been kept very quiet is that even in the "great" US of A eugenics reared its ugly head during that time. Oregon is the great "home of eugenics" in U.S., they sterilized more than 2000 people that were deemed to be "unfit" by the state. Here is some link about it. Also here .

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[king-manic]

Cute little joke, but eugenics is a debunked pseudo-science. It did not produce supermen or a master race in 19th century America, or The Third Reich. Two idiots can produce a genius child. Two geniuses can produce an idiot child. Two parents born blind can produce sighted children. An athlete and a model, seemingly superior breeding stock, frequently have children with horrible birth defects.

While I agree eugenics is bullshit, I have to disagree with your idea. It does happen that geniuses have a retarded baby, and athletic couples can have a couch patato but the apple often fall pretty damn close to the tree.

Eugenics doesn't work because having a super fit species is simply one startegy, it's called specialization. The problem with this is when the selective factors shift those who speacilize go exstinct. See the way the pandas are going, there is few species better at eating bamboo then pandas but they are dying out because they over specialize.

What you need is a lot of phenotypes/genotype available and when the selectiev factors chance, you stay competative.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Tlosk]

The only time natural selection isn't occuring is when all genes have an equal probability of being reproduced in the next generation. Any difference, no matter how slight, is natural selection in action.

And it is a misconception that when everyone reproduces that evolution has stopped. Decreases in selective pressure just increase variability within the population, as more mutations are able to survive.

Pretty much the only way to halt evolution is to destroy all life.

I suspect the reason these ways of thinking are so common is because so many people think evolution has some sort of end goal that we're moving towards.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[drgonzo59]

Sorry to reply to my own post but I just came up with a new idea for a billboard welcoming visitors into the state of Oregon.

Oregon: Welcome to the home of the USA Eugenics.
Warning: Mandatory castration enforced by the state. .

Boy, if I only had the money...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[BewireNomali]

The argument works both ways.

There are active examples of human eugenics. This isn't a flame or a troll. I wanted to preface it before I continued. Nor is this a bigoted statement.

Ashkenazi Jews are often considered to select for intelligence when breeding. They have the highest IQs for humans on average.

This is what they deal with as a consequence of this selection for intelligence:

http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displa ystory/story_id/26134/edition_id/505/format/html/d isplaystory.html/

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/cochran/over clocking.html

Also, I have friends who work in insurance. The Askenazis have high cancer rates and are essentially discriminated against in the insurance world because they tend to be very sickly.

Cheetahs overspecialize and are near extinction.

My favorite quote for this instance is from Ghost in the Shell: "Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness."

The film CUBE also touched on this a little bit, but suggested that the ideal form for future life was not human at all, but machine. Great fucking movie.

Human are conditioned to seek out these extremes and superlatives, when evolution suggests that the most succesful human form is possibly the most populous.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that "helping the human race"? What standard are we being held to? Is a small population of self-sufficient people the ideal situation? If you'd have us kill off or ignore the dumbest/weakest people, call that what it is - selfishness (not that there's anything wrong with that) - and don't pretend you have the best interests of humanity in mind.

The only objective measure for the success of the human race is its population. The socialist governemnt is best by that measure.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shutdown -p now]

One simply needs to realise that there is no fundamental right to reproduce.

Have sex all you like, as long as it's consensual, no harm done to anyone. But when a couple decides to have a child, what they're doing is introducing a new member to their society - so perhaps society should be asked whether they want it or not beforehand, since it certainly will affect them. Other means of population influx (e.g. immigration) are controlled, why not procreation?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[saskboy]

"If you mod me down or reply negatively, you lose sex priveledges too :D"

You and I are reading Slashdot. It's safe to assume that no one reading this sentence has sex priveledges as it is.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CynicalGuy]

That steers us into an ugly subject, because then what eventually happens is that smart people only mate with other smart people, which by definition introduces a new species, doesn't it?

It could perhaps produce a new species if the two groups were isolated from each other and did not breed at all across tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. But human populations don't work that way.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree,we have too many stupid people now a days.earlier,they get facilities designed by smart people and natural selection is unable to do it's work.for example,in caveman days the smart guy would realise that a thunderstorm is something to stay out of and he would take shelter in his cave.whereas,a stupid guy would venture in the storm and get struck by lightning,BAM!,the gene pool is now a lot cleaner than it was a second back.sux.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[squeee]

Dwight Yorke [footballer] and Katie Price aka Jordan [page 3/glamour model] have a child born blind. OK, so they both look like they've been beaten with the ugly stick and Jordan has had a tonne of plastic surgery, but still an athlete and a model having a child with a birth defect.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[queef_latina]

off-topic: are you friends with a lot of women?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[t35t0r]

Indeed, ADHD is not a disease, as I have always believed it is an evolved trait . People with ADHD are able to tackle more subjects simultaneously.
 
By giving people medicine to control their ADHD you are actually making them more stupid.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

hehe i knew you'd go and find a case - i'm just giving you a hard time.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[hunterx11]

You may not realize this, but eugenics actually was practiced in the U.S. Fortunately Hitler gave it a bad enough name that people came to their sense.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a racist then, or what?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Lord Maud'Dib]

Look at the time span the Bene Gesserit were working with, many thousands of years and they still didn't get it right.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[JeffSh]

this post is a joke right? that's science fiction......

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[rjelks]

Actually, from what I remember reading, Hitler got the idea from the US. In addition to Oregon, the city of Sacremento had a pretty large program going. Many people in mental institutions and prisons were force-sterilized. I have to admit, I kind of like the parenting license idea though. :)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[red990033]

Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce.

"Modern" human evolution is actually reversing the process. In general, more intelligent folks are aware of various birth control methods. These people know where and how and why it is important to use these devices. They also tend to wait to have kids, after college, and have some security built up.

On the other hand, we have the lesser minds who belive "I can't get pregnant" or "I can pull out in time" or whatever.

Bottom line: Stupid people are reproducing at a faster pace than intelligent people. Which really, when you think about it, explains a lot of why things are the way they are.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[OwP_Fabricated]

Um, I'd say that "stupid" people have done a rather extraordinary job of breeding throughout the history of our species.

The only "stupid" people who didn't survive long ago that do survive now are those with mental retardation related to genetic diseases.

And I'd say a fair amount of those diseases cause mental retardation as a secondary effect (i.e. craniofacial diseases that stop the growth of the skull).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[pembo13]

I myself don't fully subsscribe to evolution, however your point is very much with me. I strongly aggree.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[SpaceLifeForm]

Wrong. My, how wrong you are.

Having the right only exists (by definition) because you are sentient. You also have the right to not reproduce.

Other species (except whales and dolphins) do not have that choice.

To say that you have no fundamental right to reproduce is to say you are nothing but meat, an animal that is entirely driven by instinct and pheromones.

The right to reproduce is given to you *because* you exist and that is how genes operate and *persist* over time.

The fact that you are sentient gives you *choice*.

The only way your fundamental right to reproduce can be taken away from you is via genetic accident.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[kraada]

To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more, and they should be paid more, too. The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society.

I have two family members working to become elementary school teachers for New York State. One is a history major. He needs to take any 8 history courses. One is a math major and she (yes, she) needs to take 8 math courses.

Now, I can see how knowing about the history of africa can help when teaching little kids. I cannot understand how multivariant calculus helps.

It is not so much that teachers should get more education, as they should get better education. They need to learn how to teach. What's effective. How to get the kids to really learn. And they need to be motivated about their jobs.

And then we need to get the same level of motivation on the college level and some training for professors who for the most part have no frickin clue how to teach to a brick wall (and I'm currently in a graduate program teaching courses. So I think I have some right to make that statement too).

Just saying: quantity is not always the answer. What we need is quality.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Jim_Callahan]

There's still a threshold which is selected. I don't have hard evidence or statistics here, but how many people that are officially pronounced mentally retarded beyond hope of recovery do you know that have wives and children? Whereas you've probably met plenty of people judged exceptionally smart by the standard intelligence testing metrics and have children. So in this case it's the outliers driving the process, as it often is.

A bit more anecdotal nonsense, most antidepressants and other mood-affecting drugs are both ridiculously overdiagnosed and have the side effect of reducing sex drive. I hypothesize some selection going on there, too, even if it's more social than chemical. We keep it up for a few generations, the stoics might be the only ones left ;)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[rjelks]

The problem with that idea is who controls procreation. Who would you trust to decide you could give birth and who couldn't? There's a reason that Hitler used the idea and it has a great potential for abuse.

On a side note, there is legal precident for the right to give birth. During the contriversy in the 70's over "test tube babies/artificial insemination", it was determined that US citizens do have reproductive rights. I'm sure there's tons of other cases involving the concept. Maybe by fundamental, you weren't talking US law? I can follow the argument half way, but when it comes to deciding for other people...it just doesn't sit well.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Afrosheen]

What I'd like to know is if Hitler's eugenics program had the desired result. I mean, it's 50 years later, there should be some generational samples you can take to judge the effectiveness.

  Also, he implemented a super soldier program, where the best soldiers (by physical characteristic measurements and IQ tests) were 'encouraged' to breed with very suitable females. I can't remember what the whorehouses were called but they had a special name. At any rate, there were plenty of births as a result, and I'm sure they're documented.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShadyG]

Whatever this allele does, it had a selective advantage of more than 5 percent. They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be.

That's because you don't have it.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[drgonzo59]

Interesting point. I wonder if any research has been done to follow up on that?

For obvious reasons though, I don't think anyone would want to touch the subject. Nobody, in the academic world where reputation is everything, will want to be "the one" who followed up on the Nazi eugenics program.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

Agreed - i guess that's sort of what i meant. A current teacher's license can be had in four years - all the regular BA stuff, and then a couple special courses on how to teach... and you're done. I'm saying after that, you should have an intensive program that teaches you how to teach for real - the few courses offered at the undergrad level are intros at best.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Grismar]

Funny how people seem to focus on the individual to determine traits that improve the chances for survival. Even in nature, this is only part of the equation. But for humans, the traits of the groups you're a part of (family, community, town, country, etc.) take a very large part in your chances for survival. Ask anyone in New Orleans if you don't believe me.

Although heightened intelligence may not improve the chances for survival of the smart individual, it sure raises the chances of the people around this person. Smart people drive the sciences, helping people around them with medicine, engineering and other important stuff to survive.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

How right you are.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Basehart]

How about installing a trapdoor over a bottomless pit in the entrance of every Costco, KFC, WalMart and Kenny G Fan Club. That should just about do it.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

You're mistaken. When there is a threat, we mutate. That's what's happening now, we're mutating and developing a more diverse genetic base. When a really nasty disease comes along, that diverse genetic base gives us a wider range of options to fight it.

The genetic diversity we're accumulating will help ensure that when the inevitable "culling of the weak" comes in some form or another, there are a few people who are strong in the right sort of way to carry on.

Considering the intermixing between cultures that occurs in modern society, as a species we're better off with as much genetic diversity as we can get until we manage to get off planet and remove the risk of a single superbug wiping us all out.

By the way, you're sorely misguided about the whole "stupid people breeding out of control" issue too. The problem isn't the stupid people breeding too much, it's the so-called "smart" people not breeding enough. We're on our way to a societal collapse because of it.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Moofie]

Uh, but they never get anything done. That's the problem.

But hey...you tell yourself whatever stories you like. The Flying Spaghetti Monster told me it was cool.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

only let the people with an IQ above X have sex

Well... if your IQ is less than 10.... you're probably unlikely to be able to figure out how to operate a pair of pants anyway.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Vintermann]

Would you really trust the government (or anyone else for that matter) to decide what consitutes good parenting? What if it included, say, education in creationism?
There's no simple, universally agreed-upon standard for which genes are good, which parenting styles are good, which societies are good. Although I certainly have ideas about the two latter issues, and am rather content with my own genes, I wouldn't want anyone else to enforce their ideas about that upon me. And since I have this weird idea (based on weird genes and/or ideologies no doubt) that I shouldn't do to others what I wouldn't like them to do to me, I think democracy is the best option.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jd]

Alphas are stable, but are easily blocked so literally can't get out of a paper bag. Betas are too highly charged for my taste and gammas have an electromagnetic personality.

Oh, you were talking about people! Well, @ comes before alpha, in ASCII, so I'm going to be @.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[abandonment]

I hardly consider modern society as a 'normal' state of evolution.

Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve.

The state of modern society has in fact thrown out thousands of years of evolution in favour of 'creationism', and the 'golden law' - ie those with the most toys wins.

This has nothing to do with evolution, it has everything to do with the rich feeding the rich and the rich doing everything in their power to stay rich.

Look at how much 'old money' runs the world (in the US and abroad). You think that these same people, if given the same upbringing, financial situation and social status (ie 'socialist states') are somehow 'better' than those raised in capitalist 'everyone for themselves' environments?

I hardly think so.

The Bush family dynasty is the prime example of how this theory fails miserably.

When you have generation after generation of idiot propogating and continuing their 'dynasty', you inevitably result in the idiots rising to the top - hence gwb II 'the sequel' - and the rest of the old money families that think they know best and flounder around trying to play 'risk' and destroy the world...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[koekepeer]

"That's probably why I should never be allowed any power..."

exactly

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Vintermann]

You contradict yourself. First you say every species is in a state of evolution, then you say civilization has removed the engine of evolution.

As has been pointed out below, just because selectional pressures have changed doesn't mean they don't exists. We adapt to the society we actually have; that hopefully means a society where handicapped people are seen as valuable. What's wrong with that?

Consider, though, that the biggest killer of mankind is disease. It has been for a long time, wars don't compare in scale. This, incidentally, probably explains the rapid evolution of a gene to digest milk - I've got it, unlike my wife, btw. Milk is a valuable source of animal protein. Having large reserves of quality protein makes a huge difference for many diseases. Measles went from being a deadly disease in the 19. century and before, one that killed millions, to being practically harmless in the west in the 20. Everyone got it before vaccination began, though, direct genetic resistance to the disease hadn't increased. It was just that we were so fabulously much more healthy.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[koekepeer]

diversity means strength as a whole. it's completely stupid to want all people to be "ubermensch".

if i had time to write a long reply, i'd argue that it is in fact the presence of the "weaker" that allows for a humankind which is strong and adaptive as a whole.

to put it simply: if we were all rocket scientists, the world would be quite a messy place :-)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Patchw0rk F0g]

3 words, my friend: I'm still here.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

It's democracy that allows this to happen.

Democracy is essentially mob rule. If everyone believes in eugenics and supports it, it will be so under a democracy.

The United States isn't a democracy no matter how many idiots would tell you it is. It is a Republic. There is the rule of law here. Our rights are protected by the constitution and we even have more rights than the constitution enumerates. Nobody is allowed to vote those rights away.

So unless you are being sarcastic and putting the United States down when you call it a democracy you are wrong. If you are being sarcastic, Then you are right, the U.S. has many flaws so go out and do your best to set them right.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Boronx]

It just means people are evolving to be Mormons.

I would say that in the age of birth control, dumber, less reliable people and the very religious are more fit in an evolutionary sense.

I'm not sure about the latter sort of people, though. Mormons have an incredible birth rate, but they are actually growing slower than the rest of the population due to people leaving the religion.

The fastest growing religion is Islam, and it's not known (to me) as a religion obsessed with large families.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Vintermann]

I never said anything about the US. What you call a republic I call a constitutional democracy. In my dictionary, republic merely concerns whether there is a king or not, while democracy merely means that the people are the ultimate source of law and government - whether a mere plurality, a majority or some larger percentage is required to change the laws is not a part of it.

(The "consitutional" bit says that some laws should be harder to change than others. Nonetheless, the constitution is made by mere men, and so can be changed by mere men, even if that means they have to throw out all of it)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[West VA Flamer]

Evolution will never stop, that's a fact of life. But, people seem to detach themselves from the enviroment and the rest of the world we live in other then other people. For example, are you more likely to get jailtime for killing a bear in cold blood or killing a human? You can't honestly answer this question without realizing that there is huge weight just in the legal system that places a human's life over a animals. This sort of detachment from nature and other animals (not just in legal matters) makes people tend to dissosiate themselves with other animals. This article being written about "How we are still undergoing evolution" seems fascinating at first glance because of this.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[composer777]

I'm not so sure that "highly educated" is a sign of intelligence. It's pretty synonymous with "highly trained monkey" if you ask me. I don't think we're even close to having stupidity selected for as a desirable trait. The fact that there are highly educated people who believe that stupid people reproduce more often is further evidence that there is still stupidity that needs to be eliminated.

I would say that probably the trait most selected for in current US society is the ability to sell things, whether it's an idea, or a bullshit story. This would seem to require the ability to compartmentalize and maintain a set of (possibly conflicting) facts. In spite of slashdot bias to the contrary, being a good liar would seem to require intelligence. And yes, I think that this even applies to the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. It would seem to me that the guy with a sharper brain is going to be better at attracting the opposite sex. Granted we're not talking about rocket science, but it's a form of intelligence none the less.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[coma_bug]

You misspelled "privileges" - no sex for you!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[visgoth]

And no science fiction ever became fact...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex priviledges on Slashdot? Pfft.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[composer777]

I'd love to see a guy like you walk over into the bad area of town and get made a fool out of by the "stupid people". You wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously, do you even walk outside? Or do you only hang out with other overpriveledged snobs?

Oh, and as far as welfare goes, it's 2% of the US population, which is far less than the current unemployment rate. Or maybe you are saying that Americans are more intelligent than other, more socialist, countries? right... Try getting your facts from someone other than Rush.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Little brained people also have higher birth rates but also have higher deathrates (strapping a pack of dyanmite and yelling Allah, Allah).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[justin12345]

Socialism has nothing to do with it.

I live in Brooklyn, and a nasty part of it none the less. Long story as to why I moved here...

I'm not too worried about survival (I'll be leaving this winter; moving into a .5 million dollar home in Baltimore. Plus, NYC has a very low murder rate compared to most American cites.)...

Still as far as selection goes, my neighbor is clearly the victor. Ultimately his family will in the long term have a much greater chance of survival then mine, based on shear numbers alone. He works as a janitor (kinda), makes maybe 25k-30k, but has 9 kids by three different women (8 really, the 9th is expected in December). I OTOH have none (granted he is 4 years older then me... he is 29 and unmarried, had his first child at the age of 17).

Chances are, most if not all of his children will survive to reproductive age. Its also likely that few will attend college (though this really is speculative, I'm just basing it off of the fact none of their parents or grand-parents did, AFAIK).

Chances are that I will have few or no children: My girlfriend is on the pill and another prescription medication which further limits her fertility because it would require an abortion if she were to become pregnant within a year of taking it (the medication causes severe birth defects).

Even if we do wind up reproducing, I really doubt I will have more then 2 or 3 children. My neighbor OTOH, whom definitely has a lower quality education (intelligence is too subjective to judge) has definitely been far more prolific then I will ever be, though I had and probably will have a far greater quality of life.

Ironically, because we have access to excellent health care (much more so then my neighbor) we are able to choose sterility. That is not the case for my neighbor, whom cannot/will-not control reproduction (as he has complained in his own words during our infrequent conversations).

There is no welfare involved here. All parents mentioned here work and support themselves and their children (to the best of my knowledge).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Nightlight3]

This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

The rapid brain evolution discovered in the research refers to the two stages, one 37,000 years ago, the other 5800 years ago. The "stupid people" had much greater survival an reproductive disadvantages back then (at least in certain regions of the world where they identified these stages).

While in the present civilized world the "stupid people" are more prolific multipliers, there is still a selection process which prefers the pairing of the stupid with the stupid and the smart with the smart. If continued long enough (perhaps for few dozen of millenia), this process will result in speciation. The existent class divisons and divisions of labor (to physical and intellectual) will then become hardwired into the genes (although these divisons are presently encoded into the genes, due to the viability of interbreeding, they are more like software divisions).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[hypnoticstoat]

I've seen evidence of this first hand. I come from a town in England where they found earliest known caveman settlement in the country and its suprising how much closer the population of this town come to reverting back to that state with every successive generation. Gene pool? More like gene puddle.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Decaff]

Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

Not necessarily. Pressure for evolution does not have to be external - it can be driven by, for example, the preferences of members of a species about who they mate with. As long as women are selective about their male partners and men are the same then there will be evolution.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[FireFury03]

Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

Yes, at the moment we are "managing" diseases that would, in the past, be bread out of the species. For example, without my contact lenses I can't see a thing - in nature, as a hunter-gatherer species, there's no way I'd survive since I wouldn't be able to see what I am hunting/gathering, nor would I be able to see any predators. Whereas now, because of corrective lenses and supermarkets I am not in danger of starving and can pass the crap-eyesight gene on to the next generation. (And this equally applies to many, often more debilitating, diseases)

I guess that the gene pool is now widening in all directions rather than only extending in the "positive" direction. Not necessarilly a wholly bad thing - characteristics that are not immediately positive could become positive in the future so having them sticking around in the gene pool is probably good in some cases.

However, since we have now lost the evolutionary drive away from negative characteristics, I strongly believe that genetic engineering is now the way forward for our evolution. Yes, we need to be very careful of course, but without some way of removing the negative characteristics from the gene pool we're going to end up with a lot more of the population having genetic diseases.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[zoefff]

"survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening.

Nowadays we are not helping the other process either. Famous quote:
Let stupidity solve itself and remove all the warning signs.
But we still have warning signs, plenty of them.

btw ;-)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this simple idea would solve every single problem in the world in the space of a few generations.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shutdown -p now]

The problem with that idea is who controls procreation. Who would you trust to decide you could give birth and who couldn't?

If we're speaking of eugenics (substitute with "family planning" if you don't like the word) here, at least in its most basic forms, then obviously only a qualified medical specialist can make any decisions (for the record, I'm not one). Also note that there's no need why he should know the names or any other personal information of those whose case he judges - I think this is good enough to prevent any abuse of the system.

There's a reason that Hitler used the idea and it has a great potential for abuse.

Just like every other law or regulation. I do believe that, if done properly, benefits would outweigh the risks.

On a side note, there is legal precident for the right to give birth. During the contriversy in the 70's over "test tube babies/artificial insemination", it was determined that US citizens do have reproductive rights. I'm sure there's tons of other cases involving the concept. Maybe by fundamental, you weren't talking US law?

The very concept of 'fundamental rights' (which, frankly, I'm very skeptical about myself) are by definition not dependant on any single country's law - they are supposedly 'inherent' to any human being, so the government cannot grant them to you, only deny you them. But to clarify: I am not a US citizen, and anyway, US would probably be the last Western country to implement such laws if it ever happens, considering the current controversy around abortion and sexual education...

I can follow the argument half way, but when it comes to deciding for other people...it just doesn't sit well.

My point was, there are many things that has to be 'decided for other people' - that's the whole reason why we have such things as laws and governments to make and enforce them. I merely consider birth control / family planning to be one such thing. And really, why shouldn't it be? It clearly can affect other members of society in a variety of ways, not all of them beneficial: the most trivial example would be having to support children with birth defects. I would gladly hear any arguments against, apart from the usual (and meaningless) 'slippery slope' one. Note that 'who decides?' is not an argument against, but merely a question about implementation details.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CmdrGravy]

If we lived in societies where the amount of money you had was related to intelligence then maybe you'd have a point but unfortunately we don't.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CmdrGravy]

Pants, all I know about pants is that I prefer them in leather.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Fred_A]

Actually it has been done in pretty much every country. Eugenics was extremely popular at the beginning of the XXth century and was practiced more or less covertly almost everywhere.

Germany actually integrated it into the official doctrine which was quite bold even for the times, and allowed them to do things on a grander scale, but what they did was done pretty much everywhere else.
The US, most European countries, and probably a lot of others were into this. In some places it went on after WWII with the forced sterilisation of mental patients and the like.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think it will end up smart with the smart and stupid with the stupid, but I'm pretty sure some of the smart will break ranks for a stunningly hot stupid.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Angostura]

Sorry, that sounds like a substantial misunderstanding of the biology. There is nothing to suggest that in mammals the rate of mutation is related to threat.

The mutation rate is relatively constant. It is the selection pressure which changes.

You makeit sound as if the human genome is somehow diversifying to meet the threat of a nasty disease. No. It is the existing diversity that will provide differential fitness when the disease hits.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[TheRaven64]

The main problem with Hitler's programme from an evolutionary standpoint (completely ignoring the human rights aspects) was that it selected the wrong things. How, exactly, are blue eyes and blond hair advantageous to survival? As someone born with both, I would quite like to know. Meanwhile, he persecuted the Jews, even though this included many of his top scientists (who left and worked for the allies). Had he focussed on intelligence, he would almost certainly have retained enough talent to develop the atom bomb before the end of WW2. The down side is that he would not have come to power in the first place, because his election strategy revolved around blaming the Jews for everything.

Perhaps the moral of this is that there should be an intelligence test for voting...

Actually, I would like to see each voter have to complete a short multiple-choice test on the opinions of the candidate for whom they are voting, and discounting all votes from people who get less than 70% - if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shani]

You're mistaken. When there is a threat, we mutate.

I am not a biologist, but I am pretty sure that while mutation does occur, it is rare and very few mutant genes survive to reproduce themselves even once. In general it is gene selection that causes most evolution rather than gene mutation.

By this I mean the case where a rare, but non-harmful, gene becomes useful due to a change in environment. In such a case the gene gains advantage over its alleles and becomes common.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[kripkenstein]

"They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be."

Actually, it is easy to think of alternatives. All we know is that the gene is somehow related to brain SIZE. Size doesn't mean quality. Perhaps it just enlarges the brain by altering non-intelligence-related areas (for example, motoric or sensory areas). Perhaps it multiplies glia ('supportive' cells) and not neurons ('computational' cells). Perhaps it just copies brain areas instead of improving them (thus providing redundancy, a benefit against brain damage).

There are more things than can be done to the brain, and that improve survivability, than raising intelligence.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[term8or]

First off, it's hard to see *any* species as being in anything other than a state of evolution. To suggest otherwise implies a superficial understand of what evolution is about.

This is true to an extent: the biological definition of species requires sexual reproduction that implies evolution. But there are other forms of reproduction that exclude evolution as each generation is genetically identical to the last. For instance Apomixis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apomixis .

Even in the case of sexual reproduction, there is a hypothesis that it is possible for a species to evolve into a local minimum where every change from the norm results in a disadvantage to the individual. (I can only really see this happening in a very simple and stable ecosystem).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[mrRay720]

And no science fiction ever became fact...

If you're really implying that all science fiction becomes science fact, I think you should stop posting and start worrying about what you're going to do when Darth Vader/Skynet/Triffids/Bodysnatchers come to get you...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[maxwell demon]

There's no simple, universally agreed-upon standard for which genes are good

Indeed, even for genetic deceases, things are not always so clear-cut. For example I've heared that in malaria regions there's an increased number of sickle cell anemia cases as well. Why? Well, you'll get sickle cell anemia only if you have two defect genes (i.e. got one both from your father and your mother). If you got only one, you don't get sickle cell anemia, but you get an increased resistance against malaria. And obviously in malaria regions the extra resistance against malaria is a large enough evolutionary advantage to overcompensate for the sickle cell anemia risk.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[famebait]

Shoudn't you be out getting us som meat, O great Survivor?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[dalutong]

I can't believe how often highly educated people will pontificate on this subject, and get it wrong. Yes, usually the media is to blame -- science reporting is notoriously bad -- but that does not appear to be the case here.

Or maybe you don't get it. Evolution doesn't have to happen throughout the species. Our new-found mobility and related partner-selection freedom might be driving people of different abilities to find people of similar abilities. And, since we can move and choose freely, we are mating with people who are much more unlike ourselves than was possible 10000 years ago (where it was almost always going to be someone in your tribe you mated with.) That is probably causing some interesting blends.

Does everyone marry outside of their town? No. But, like I said, it doesn't have to happen with everyone. People of similar abilities (and interests) are finding oneanother. Smart people find other smart people. Artistic people find artistic people. Calculating/math people find calculating/math people.

So those areas are probably evolving in their own sub-spheres, where "survival of the fittest" means whatever-you-decide-"survival"-is, not about kicking everyone else's ass. So the greatest artists survive, the greatest math minds survive, the greatest business minds survive. But survival/evolutionary success isn't about having lots of kids, it's about getting the mate you want.

So I think there is evolution -- I just think it is a lot different than most people assume.

sorry if that rambled. It's 6:30am...

On an unrelated note, many are also finding

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not the case for my neighbor, whom cannot/will-not control reproduction (as he has complained in his own words during our infrequent conversations).

You mean "who". And are you really sure he was just complaining? He may have been boasting a bit about his potency at the same time.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[utnow]

I'd like to propose that stupidity is being bred for in the future of our race. I don't have a single hard fact to back this up so just float with me on this one.

Your average middle-class college educated man will have roughly 2.4 children. Your average (harf) upper-class individual will have the same or fewer kids. At the same time, your average lower-class man will father many children, to (broad generalization warning) many women. The women will simultaneously have a high number of children due to welfare increases.

Granted money!=intelligence but it can be safe to say that those among us with mental deficiencies will find it harder to find gainful employment and will find themselves among the lower income brackets.

One could also make arguments about the intelligence required to put on a condom. According to my very basic understanding of evolution, it seems that on a long enough timeline, the ability to put on a condom would get bred out of our species. :D

6am thinking is FUN!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Jo_2521]

"Also, he implemented a super soldier program, where the best soldiers (by physical characteristic measurements and IQ tests) were 'encouraged' to breed with very suitable females. I can't remember what the whorehouses were called but they had a special name."

I believe you're talking about "Lebensborn": the fathers were mostly soldiers in the SS and had to fulfill requirements like the right genealogical tree, looking sufficiently arian, no IQ-test though. Same of course applies to the prospective mothers.

Later in the war they kidnaped children who looked sufficiently arian from the streets to raise them in homes operated by Lebensborn.

According to wikipedia, there were about 7000-8000 births during 1939-1945.

I won't comment on your question concerning the "effectiveness" of that operation. I mean, what do you expect? That german is roamed by super-intelligent blue plasmas... no wait, blue-eyed, blonde-haired arian-caucasian males? Nope.

By the way, maybe it's because I'm german and all, but this whole discussion here smacks of eugenics.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Parker703]

Yeah, and then there's Kayne West, proving the opposite.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ifwm]

"Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve."

More money (generally) equates to better resources including access to healthcare, safer and better housing, and better nutrition.

How you can claim money "has absolutely nothing" to do genes surviving is really beyond me.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, human evolution is not a safe subject in some countries anymore...

Which, ironically enough, may lead to its own evolutionary process. If belief in human evolution progresses from "not a safe subject" to death before breeding age or a just a proscription on breeding, what consequences might that have on the gene pool?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[LordVader717]

Who is to say what is good for the human race? Having "superior" genes? Multiplying to every corner of the universe?
This is what would happen if the basic driving force of evolution were to succeed, but is that really what we want?

And who is to say that the poeple benfefiting from the welfare system today, wouldn't have had a higher status when poeple didn't have to worry about getting an education, and instead concentrate on hunting, therby beating socalled "smarter" people to it?

"Selection" criteria have changed so much since the beginning of civilisation. Wanting to filter selection by the criteria that are important at this moment in time (in which chance is probably the most important factor)is immoral and simply wrong.

Without welfare systems, the selection criteria would probably be even further from socalled "natural selection".

Just because you have had some luck, and "succeeded" in modern society, doesn't mean your genes are any better for the future of the human race than the guy living on benefit.
And if you really want to pass on your genes and produce more offspring, nobody's stopping you.

Genetics are too intricate, to think that destroying all appearences of society will lead to better genes.

Your view is just way too simplistic.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[GoatMonkey2112]

It seems like it's just the opposite of the article description. Stupid people seem to reproduce more from what I have seen. Witness the logic of reproducing to get a bigger welfare check.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jellomizer]

Well most really stupid people don't reproduce. A person with an extremely low IQ, or severe mental problems will probably have a hard time attracting a mate, because they are unable to live daily without help, and may be unable to love on the intellectual level. But a person with a high IQ can find mate and reproduce quite easily. If it is a situation where the mate is not attracted to a person with a high IQ they will act dumber, hence a lot of the dumb jocks, and bimbos, etc. out there, most of them are actually fairly smart people but they learned to act dumb because it helps them socialize better.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[johnnyb]

"at least in its most basic forms, then obviously only a qualified medical specialist can make any decisions"

This is a bad idea. It assumes that medical knowledge (and not, say, ethical knowledge, or spritual knowledge, or personal knowledge) is required to make the decision.

"The very concept of 'fundamental rights' (which, frankly, I'm very skeptical about myself) are by definition not dependant on any single country's law - they are supposedly 'inherent' to any human being, so the government cannot grant them to you, only deny you them."

Yes, and this is because they are founded upon theological premises.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[thc69]

This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

Natural selection for smart minds has been halted by civilization. Natural selection for inferior bodies has been halted by modern medicine (where available). However, there is still one source of evolution -- random mutations.

Basically, we're not discarding the old bad stuff, but the rare random mutation that doesn't include sterility is pretty likely to get passed on.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Peter La Casse]

You think it's funny, but there ought to be some standard for parenthood. While regulating people's right to reproduce may not sit very well with some (myself included), I can't help thinking that a lot of social ills might be benefited.

An acquaintance of mine was preparing to adopt. This involved all kinds of "pre-parental" counselling that he found to be very useful. He said something like "It would be nice if everybody took parenting classes before becoming a parent."

The lesson I take from that is that parenting, just like anything else in life, works out better if you don't assume from the start that you have all the answers.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[WindBourne]

Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail....stupid people still reproduce.

I think that you are mistaken. Historically, evolution is based on individuals. Instead, consider that groups of humans are evolving.

A good example is to consider what is happening in Africa and Central/South America. The death and birth rate in each continent is very high. But it decreases once a group aquires an education and some power. Both areas will over time aquire higher education and power.

Right now, Europe and America are somewhat in stable states, but even in America, we tend to send our uneducated masses to war, not our educated. China and India are slowing their growth rate but the educated have long lives.

Once we finally start the exodus to Mars (not to the moon as it is incapable of real life), we will see more evolution in individual humans again, as all new pressures will come to bear on our species.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Tiroth]

To me, the reply to the question you raise is very simple -- one needn't even consider the ethical ramifications: humans are simply not intelligent/developed enough to direct their own evolution. We barely understand how genes work and interact over time; what hubris to change the course of our own evolution!

At the moment, short of mass murder or sterilization, we fortunately can't impact our evolutionary course strongly. In the future, however, it is quite possible that we will be able to alter the genetics of our children (i.e. Gattaca) The first baby steps are already being taken, with IV fertilization being able to select against embryos with diseases in some cases.

I have to think that if this technology is created, it will be impossible to control it's use.

Human history to date has shown that we are short-sighted as a society (see: the environment) and even shorter-sighted when it comes to our own desires. Compounding this is the fact that genetic alteration becomes a tragedy of the commons--the impact from a few people is small, but the logical extension is a world in which only the "superior" genes survive.

And then who is to say that we won't all die from bird flu or some other new pathogen, having created our own little genetic bottleneck? Or maybe we'll all be a bit smarter, but we'll also lose out on the rare Einstein or Newton that have altered the world in the past. (Again, if you are familiar with Gattaca, the DVD has a long list of prominent minds who would never have existed if we selected against their congenital conditions)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm glad I'm an Alpha, I clearly see the need for Gammas and Deltas. And for them to be in greater numbers than the Alphas and Betas. That reminds me; trash truck comes tomorrow AM...

I don't want to be an Alpha; they work too hard on boring jobs all day! I'm so glad I'm a Beta! My clothes are much nicer, and prettier colours! I'm so glad I'm a Beta! All my friends are Betas, not like those nasty Gammas and Deltas. I'm so glad I'm a Beta!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[i41Overlord]

I'd love to see a guy like you walk over into the bad area of town and get made a fool out of by the "stupid people". You wouldn't stand a chance. Seriously, do you even walk outside? Or do you only hang out with other overpriveledged snobs?

I'm not overpriveledged. I grew up in a working class town and I went to school in a pretty rough town. I put myself in the situation I'm in now, I wasn't fed with a silver spoon.

Also, I don't listen to Rush. I don't get along well with Bible-thumping Republicans.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

That was a typo. I meant to say that this happens during the lack of threat. As in, when we are threatened, our weak die off and we lose their genetic diversity.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately his family will in the long term have a much greater chance of survival then mine, based on shear numbers alone.

As long as your neighbor doesn't misspell words consisting of four letters, I think society is doing well.

Chances are that I will have few or no children:

Considering all the grammatical and spelling mistakes you made, I'm not thinking this is a bad thing. Your post implies that you're intelligent and your neighbor is not, but your post shows that you may not be quite as smart as you think you are.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[russellh]

breeding favorable traits (or any trait) requires many many generations.
to see this, just look at dog breeds.

I assume you mean the fact that dog breeds exist. Most are man-made. the alaskan malamute is just about the only "natural" dog left.

there was an interesting article in the Atlantic a few years ago about competitive dog breeders' ideas of genetics. Because they only breed champions they kill off a lot of good traits in dogs deemed less than perfect (as defined by the AKA).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[maxume]

To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more, and they should be paid more, too. The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society.

I disagree. Being a teacher should require a 3 month certification and the ok of a competent screener. When I look back at my 'really good teachers', the one thing they seem to have in common is life experience. In Michigan(where I happen to live), teachers are required to do "Professional Development". This means that once they start teaching, they must earn a Masters degree, and after that, take a certain number of classes each year. These requirements don't make them better teachers, they just lead to the creation of programs specially designed to make staying certified easy. Examples? Classes offered over 3 weekends with 8 hours of instruction everyday. No testing, just instruction. What a crock.

The point of the 3 month certification is to make sure that new teachers are equipped to do the busy work associated with teaching, that they understand how to grade fairly, stuff like that. Can't learn it all in 3 months? You don't get to teach. The screeners job is to make sure of two things: The candidate is neither a moron nor an asshole.

Making it difficult to become a teacher means that people with that oh-so-valuable life experience don't bother. Making it easier would mean that people with that experience would think a lot harder about switching careers at 40 to teach for 10 years.

I agree that teachers should be paid more, but the first step to opening teaching up as a temporary career is to decouple the pension systems from the salaries, or at the very least, make pension contributions optional. Someone making $40,000 a year and fully vesting a pension in 30 years and then claiming that they are underpaid is smoking crack!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Megamote]

"Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species."

Civilization makes us more human. With civilization comes the nobility of purpose. There's a place for everyone in a civilized world.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[MyLongNickName]

Actually, I would like to see each voter have to complete a short multiple-choice test on the opinions of the candidate for whom they are voting, and discounting all votes from people who get less than 70% - if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you.

They had similar tests in the U.S. South. Called 'Jim Crow' laws. Wiki it if you have time.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that teachers should be paid more, but the first step to opening teaching up as a temporary career is to decouple the pension systems from the salaries, or at the very least, make pension contributions optional. Someone making $40,000 a year and fully vesting a pension in 30 years and then claiming that they are underpaid is smoking crack!

Really? How does that salary stack up as a whole to other professions where a BS/BA or MA is the norm? Really thing you can get a decent high school science or math teacher (or hell, even a decent middle school teacher) for 40k a year in any but the lowest cost of living areas? And dont' even get me started on the supposedly "free" summers these folks get. I've got two buddies right now doing the "professional development" thing and paying for it out of their own pockets. The bright ones usually figure it out and go on to do something else. The others are either seriously altruistic or lame.

A high school physics teacher of mine was 26 and had a masters in physics.. and she was was an effective teacher. She lasted two years before the bullshit and pay drove her to.. tada! Hotel management.. where she's now comfortably in six digit territory.

You want something to bitch about? How about the high school diploma wielding postal worker making 55k with awesome bennies.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CaptKludge]

This is all really a red herring. Read Steve Pinker or Ray Kurzweil. We're at a point in human evolution where memetic (knowledge) evolution has a much greater meaning to the success of our species than genetic evolution. Within our lifetimes we're going to see ourselves augmenting our intelligence at a much faster clip than was ever possible through genetic selection. Think about it. Even today it's the people who are knowledgeable about how to use modern tools (calculators, Google, blogs) that are truly able to grow their knowledge of the world.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[TheRealMindChild]

Are you embarrassed to say that your woman is on Accutane?

I bet half of the readers here are.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

"The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society."

I support your ideas, but you are wrong. The day that we see [teachers getting comperable education / pay to doctors] is 20 - 40 years before we see some real advances in society.

The new generation of super teachers would have to replace the old generation of teachers, and then they would have to have an output of super-taught students for a while before society would see any change.

That's why it hasn't been done.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

the same could easily be done with humans, certainly.

... for various definitions of "easily", I presume. I'm not sure if I want to consider forced-and-controlled reproductive acts of sentient beings easy.... since, I think at least, the first thing you would need is either a prison or a cult.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[vertinox]

Still as far as selection goes, my neighbor is clearly the victor.

He'll still die... Just like you. In the end, both of you are equal in the end (unless we debate reincarnation and the afterlife, but speaking strictly in the "taking the most toys with you" concept). The problem is that society focuses on things like they are immortal or that the human race with remain socially and technologially the same for the next 10,000 years.

Well maybe it will, but in general it won't because in 2,000 years things will be done quite differently and if they aren't then man kind is doomed to an eventually life destroying event such as meteor impact, solar flare, or some type of even that isn't likley now but given 100,000 years or so it would be.

I'd like to give mankind the benefit of the doubt in hopes in that it will progress beyond it's sum of sexual reproduction. I'd like to hope this will happen in my life time and I'll end up with a synthetic brain and not having to worry about growing old and dying after 2080 or so...

If that were the case I'd say to hell with having kids because if I end up in a post human state then the whole being human and having offspring just seems like a silly point.

If not... Then I'm still going to die and I won't be around in 50,000 to debate these kinds of issues with whatever form of sentient life that is around. Putting kids through college or making them suffer the rigors of life is something I'm not interested in. I'm quite a selfish person and I'd be a horrible parent considering I'd tried to indoctrinate them in some sort of cult or tell them to leave me alone with I'm playing video games.

I'd wish many more people would realize that they don't make good parents and should have gotten a vasectomy years ago. That said... Some people make great parents and love their kids very much so, but it still won't matter in 50,000 years or so unless we figure out a solution to this death thing.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[maxume]

Yeah, I have no idea what the real numbers are for salary. My point was that bitching about how little you are paid while ignoring the huge amount of money that is being 'set aside' to pay your pension is ridiculous. As far as the MA thing goes, I don't see any reason to pay somebody more just because they jumped through a hoop. I am unconvinced that the MA that most teachers end up with is worth the paper it might be printed on. Perhaps I am wrong.

I still agree that they are underpaid, I just wish they would argue thier case better.

Also, I think professional development is stupid. Pointless. A waste of everybodies money.

Vacation? Teachers do have an above average number of days where they don't have to go to work. The ones I know tend to have at least 8 weeks of pretty clear time in the summer, plus quite a bit during the school year(these are harder to call vacation, they probably work at home).

As far as the postal worker goes, apparently that is what it takes to get somebody to be a postal worker. It isn't his fault people will teach for beans.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Scrameustache]

After all, what has been the driving force behind the evolution of the brain? Big-brained people surviving and succeeding in reproduction where little-brained people fail.

This isn't really happening anymore. Yes, smart people still trump over stupid people in most aspects of life, but stupid people still reproduce. Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

Man is a wolf for man, the ability to outsmart big dumb bullies has never stopped being a factor in social circumstances where survival to adulthood is not a given (i.e. the circumstances of about two thirds of the current global population).

And the summary mentions 60 000 years, you say civilisation makes that unlikely? What 60 000 year old civilisation are you referring to, exactly? I'm hard pressed to find one over five thousand years of age.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

You're mistaken. When there is a threat, we mutate.

Our DNA must have a very good grasp of current affairs.

Considering the intermixing between cultures that occurs in modern society, as a species we're better off with as much genetic diversity as we can get until we manage to get off planet and remove the risk of a single superbug wiping us all out.

There is actually more genetic diversity within a 'race' than there are between them. Mixing them is not contributing significantly to greater diversity.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

I'm not a biologist either, but both my brother and sister are. From my conversations with them, I came to understand that not all genes need to provide a genetic advantage to take over the population.

For example, apparently there's a new human mutation which adds an extra strand to the DNA chain, so you have 3 coming off the end instead of two. This would mean that a male would have 4 strands (diagram: --E ) while a female would have 6 (diagram: 3-E ). Those with this mutation will breed true with other holding the same mutation, and will also pass it along if they breed with older versions of humans that only have 2. So eventually, human beings with X and Y shaped DNA are going to be bred out.

Just an example.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Kismet]

Smart people, dumb people; this is largely a manufactured distinction anyway. Dumb people are usually not dumb because of some genetic deficiency of the brain, but rather due to deficiencies in the social machinery that surrounds them. It may be that the manner in which one uses one's brain can affect physical characteristics of the brain, but this would not be due to any genetic programming.

It is entirely possible that the selective advantage of one gene over another might have nothing at all to do with the capacity for intelligence that the gene lends to the individual.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Scrameustache]

only let the people with an IQ above X have sex

Wait, you haven't thought this through!

First of all, we need to test Salma Hayek for I.Q., and we make sure that "X" is below her score.
THEN, I'll be on-board ;-)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[kalirion]

I don't see how belief can be an "evolved trait." Even intelligence wouldn't help here - some people will be dumb enough to just believe what their told, while others will be smart enough to keep their beliefs to themselves.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[MyLongNickName]

while others will be smart enough to keep their beliefs to themselves.

What is funny is you don't realize you just put yourself down.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[tooth]

Meanwhile, he persecuted the Jews, even though this included many of his top scientists

I've heard it said that hitler lost the war because he killed all his best scientists. Do you think Turing would have been an influence if he was on the other side? But then again, once the war was over the british pretty much killed him (Turing) off.

because his election strategy revolved around blaming the Jews for everything.

I don't think this is correct. He only brought that up later, and even then I think a lot of it was hidden from the general population. He rose to power by basically going up against the communists on a nationalist platform (Nazi is a bastardisd version of National Socialists in german)

This is only my limited understanding, I'm sure someone who knows more (correct) info can post some. More reading: wikipedia knows all (I haven't read it, so I could be wrong)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

How the hell did this get modded funny? Another increadible waste of mod points...
 
Good job, slashbots.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[tsarmallon]

Civilization is a part of evolution, albeit a social evolution. Just as man evolved an upright gait, an opposable thumb and the ability to use tools, civilization is a product of evolution. Aristotle outlines the tendency of man to form a civilisation in 'The Politics'. He claims that man evolves to start a family, a household and subsequently a city to fill his needs. This 'social evolution' occurs at a pace that is much faster than biological evolution. A cursory analysis of the obesity problem in the States provides an example. Humans are 'engineered' to be constantly in motion and eating an omnivorous diet. Humans get fat when the diet is comprised of twinkies and exercise is limited to the walk to the car. The body craves fattening food because it was rare when our biochemical pathways evolved, but provided a large amount of energy. The biological driving force behind evolution, the desire to mate, has not been eliminated or made commensurate to social evolution. Civilisation allows many to survive and mate, perhaps this is a mechanism to keep the gene pool diverse. Of course, none of this applies to slashdot readers, as we are clearly not human, but the archetype of the next generation

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shani]

For example, apparently there's a new human mutation which adds an extra strand to the DNA chain, so you have 3 coming off the end instead of two.

I guess you're talking about chromosomes, not DNS strands. Everyone gets just the one DNA strand (unless you count mitochondrial DNA), right?

What you describe sounds more like a chromosomal aberration than a mutation to me, but I suppose it is possible. Do you have a URL?

I, for one, welcome our new --E or 3-E chromosomed overlords!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

Considering the intermixing between cultures that occurs in modern society, as a species we're better off with as much genetic diversity as we can get until we manage to get off planet and remove the risk of a single superbug wiping us all out.

There is actually more genetic diversity within a 'race' than there are between them. Mixing them is not contributing significantly to greater diversity.

My point was that earlier in our history, a nasty virus could wipe out an entire pocket of humanity without having the opportunity to spread to others, but in our modern world it has ample opportunity to spread making genetic diversity that much more important. When we manage to get off planet, we'll reach that point again where a disease could, for example, wipe out every human on Earth, and from a "survival of man" perspective, that just means a whole "new" frontier for the survivors off Earth.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Distinguished Hero]

Um... socialism keeps your janitor neighbour's 9 kids (raised by single mothers) alive. Without socialism, a lot of them would die, or they wouldn't even be born to begin with (the female body does not get pregnant if it does not have a certain level of nurishment). Without socialism, those successful or caring enough to care for their children would have their children survive, and those like your neighbour would have no children left.

Doesn't it seem kind of sick to you that the biggest selective pressure nowadays is being too stupid to know how to put a condom on, too insensitive to care, or too lazy to actually do it?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[CFTM]

Actually, I'd argue there is an advantage to survival; having fair skin light eyes and light hair causes people to immediately treat you differently. I never noticed it until I lost weight but depending upon how you look people will treat you quite a bit differently, even as a male. I realize that weight is a contributing factor here but the closer you fall to the subconcious societal ideal, the more immediate respect you are given.

If you want some ancedotal evidence, look at Hollywood; generally considered to be the most attractive people. A large portion have light colored eyes...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jabber01]

Stupid people are still breeding, yes, but consider that, from an evolutionary perspective, the range of human intelligence isn't sufficient to be a deciding factor in choosing a mate.

Also bear in mind that we're talking about a pretty broad environment here - the average human is what we're looking at, not Einstein or the inverse. Statistically speaking, more intelligence is still preferable to less intelligence, so an upward swing is perfectly reasonable.

To think evolution has halted at the present human form is hubris indeed. It presumes evolution intended for us to be the product of the process - this is almost as dangerous as buying into Intelligent Design.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

No, no link, my brother is a student of genetic engineering and he was telling me about it last night. I think he did actually say it was about the cromosomes. My brother and sister are both bio-geeks and I'm more comfortable in the world of math, computers and physics, so I tend to pick up the gist of a lot of things but screw up the terminology :P

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Distinguished Hero]

Sorry, I just noticed this:
There is no welfare involved here. All parents mentioned here work and support themselves and their children (to the best of my knowledge).

Perhaps that is so (though I find it a bit dubious that no welfare was ever involved); however, they still probably benefit from Medicare, Medicaid (or whatever you guys have), not to mention minimum wage, not having to worry about saving for retirement because the government will do it for you (social security), goverment payments for having children, government payments for being single mothers, etc. The government has its grubby little fingers in everything, and just as it skews the free market, it also skews the gene pool.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Or getting to be the president of a big nation and sending a LOT of people over the so-called "little brain" land to die fighting a zero-brain war.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Distinguished Hero]

Your story is very inspirational. Unfortunately, your kind are not well received here as you provide anecdotal evidence against the "capitalism makes baby Jesus cry" school of economic thought. Just a friendly warning. Keep up the good work though.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[DisownedSky]

But you didn't make any argument that the research or the articels about it are wrong.

They found a meaningful mutation in genese that affect brain development may have been introduced into the human population only 5800 years ago, which is just about last week in evolutionary terms.

It's not "smart" or "stupid" that evolve, but alleles. Genes mutate, may have some significant phenotypic effect (or may not) and move around in populations. If the mutation "sticks," you've got evolution going on.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Dr. Evil]

You've obviously never been in my elevator.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[lgw]

Every time a person born poor works his way to wealth, God kills a kitten!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

X is the roman number of 10, right?
May I have sex now?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[spiro_killglance]

Thats almost word for word, from Audous Huxleys brave new world, a chant forced on beta workers, to make them happy with they lot.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ChrisMaple]

Walmart, Costco: so you think it's stupid not to spend too much. The trapdoor should be in front of your house.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Valiss]

To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more, and they should be paid more, too. The day we see that is the day we see some real advances in society.


Maybe for HS and college, but I doubt I needed a Ph.D. instructor when I was 8y/o and in 3rd grade to teach me cursive writing.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[tgibbs]

First off, it's hard to see *any* species as being in anything other than a state of evolution. To suggest otherwise implies a superficial understand of what evolution is about.

While evolution never completely stops, it is possible for a species to get "stuck" in a "local optimum," such that any change reduces fitness, in which case evolution will proceed only in response to external perturbation, such as a new disease.

It is far from obvious that evolution will favor continued increase in intelligence. After all, highly intelligent people, while they may be more successful in certain endeavors, are also more prone to get distracted into endeavors that interfere with their primary job (as far as natural selection is concerned) of spreading their genes as widely as possible.

However, considering how much we have modified our own environment over the past several thousand years, it seems likely that there would be evolutionary changes in the brain to adapt. I would be hesitant to seize on intelligence as the most likely factor to evolve. Another possibility might be emotional changes that make people better adapted to living in large groups.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Jack Pirate]

Letting the weakest die off might seem un-pc and mean in the short term, but in the long term it's helping the human race.

The human race is not necessarily made better by selecting only for intelligence. In your example, modern society has begun placing an increased emphasis on selecting for compassion, team work, and similar less self-centric ideals. I would rather live in a society of stupid nice people that inteligent asses.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the so-called "smart" people not breeding enough.

Well, if you you're smart but single and think it's that much of a problem, there's always sperm donation at the local fertility clinic...

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[FecesFlingingRhesus]

No, the stupidity is in not thinking through your purchasing decision and entering a mega-corporation that has systematically destroyed wages, values and law to meet there ends, hiding behind the veil of corporate liability. Hamilton, the idiot, created a monster when he championed the corporation as an entity with no personal liability. Intelligence would be thinking beyond the one dimension of impulsive and primitive nature of greed to reason that your support for these companies in the end devalues you. Seeing the chain of events and patterns of actions is more of an indicator of intelligence then saving a buck to satisfy the primitive instinct of greed that even a dog possesses.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[sgt_doom]

There is the biological rule of reduction to the mean, i.e., smart people tend to breed less smart people and average people tend to breed above-average people. This rule is troublesome to many as it destroys the notion of eugenics.

Poul Anderson wrote an interesting SF short story years ago about culling the most intelligent people in a society - setting them on a distant planet, from which developed a race of super-intelligent people. But scientifically that might just not work!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Afrosheen]

Thanks for the extra information. I've always found the Nazi eugenics program fascinating but the results were never really exposed. Lebensborn might have been a success for all we know, it was just on too small of a scale to make an impact on the general populous. Then again, maybe it was a big waste of time and resources.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Another increadible waste

Increadible? I think the proper spelling of that is readible++.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[sgt_doom]

Let's see now....George Bush at the 60,000 years ago range - and myself at the present state of evolution.

Sounds right!

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jjr1]

I'd say that's kind of unlikely when this country can't even handle a relatively simple presidential election without massive problems and allegations of fraud. If you have the partisan groups operate their own tests i'm sure you'd be happy as 100% would get a sufficient score to count their vote.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jjr1]

Absurd, yes. Frightening, absolutely. I foresee a huge run on hair dye.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[AvitarX]

That is a false statement.

The poorest and least educated reproduce like mad, as is human nature (genetics). When things are bleak pop out babies.

Yes, rich people could be smarter (since a liniage of smart people is probably an indicator of a liniage of success), but even in the impoverished classes there are some smart people (I work with people from the area of the US with the least income) these people still do not know much, because school doesn't teach anything in this area, and they have more important things to worry about than self education (like making sure their children don't end up shot/shooting someone).

Even in the bad areas where the "dumbest people" "bread out of control" there is a selection for intelligence over idiocy.

An example of a smart person without an education:
We were talking about AIDS, and a guy was like "a dude cannot get AIDS from strait sex because the penis doesn't suck anything in". He was the only person in the room who believed this, but he believed due to a thought prossess, not because he was told it, you need to take my word that in talking to him you could tell he was intelligent. With some basic biology education he could have been tought about semi-permiable membranes and understood how he was wrong, but without any education there was a apparrent idiocy.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[sean23007]

The spawn of athletes and models is not a good metric to look at anyway. Has the child of an athlete and a model ever grown up to be anything other than another athlete or model?

What we should be remarking on is the fact that when two very smart people have a child, he/she is often autistic (far more than average). Why?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jafac]

That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening.

I tend to believe that this has been a factor only in the past 100-150 years or so, as population growth has exploded with industrialization and post-industrialization. Civilization's best and brightest, most often choose 0-2 children. That's just a fact. The rest have 3, 5, 10, 15 kids. Whether the factors that set these two groups apart are social, economic, or genetic, is a point of dispute. I would accept that it's a mix of all three, with genetic not being an insignificant proportion. Through sheer numbers, it's hard not to feel as if the latter group is winning out in the evolution "game". The fact is, we're all the same species, so winning or losing are really meaningless abstractions. What this means for the future of our species is unknown.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[jahudabudy]

GP: "Whether you have more money or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether your 'genes' are hardy enough to survive, propogate and evolve."

P: How you can claim money "has absolutely nothing" to do genes surviving is really beyond me.

How you got that "money has absolutely nothing to do with genes surviving" from his statement that "money...has absolutely nothing to do with whether your genes are hardy enough to survive..." is really beyond me. In fact, your assertion about money==better resources [for survival] SUPPORTS his implication that more money = survival in the modern age, which means that money has replaced the historical evolutionary criteria for survival.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[drwho]

Survival of the dumbest -- well, that's adaption as well. Survival of the dumbest would seem to say high brain power isn't just useless, it's counter-productive. The reasoning being that those with more brain power tend to seek out higher education at Universities, in order to make the most of their brainpower, but that college education and post-college career choices seem to make people have less children. I wonder what the replacement rate is among Harvard/MIT/Stanford PhDs: I am sure it's nowhere near parity, I wouldn't been surprised if it's below 50% (meaning that a couple on average has less than one child).

Survival of the dumbest would probably favor an stronger immune system (to deal with the filth of the breeding ghettos), and broad hips (to make popping out babies easier), and perhaps an ability to yell loud (to address the swarm of offspring).

I wonder if survival of the dumbest favors height, Consider the Wilt Chamberlain factor....

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[tgibbs]

Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it. They might lack the genes to effectively compete in modern society, but it doesn't matter as long as you're paying for their house, food, healthcare, and kids.

Socialist governments provide, for people in large groups, the sort of community support that smaller communities provide out of a web of relationships.

It's is likely that highly intelligent people have always tended to have less children than average. They are too likely to get distracted by activities other than breeding. We may well be at or close to steady-state with respect to selection for intelligence. While bright parents are more likely to have bright children, there aren't that many of them. So a lot bright kids are simply the offspring of average parents who happen to have "won" the genetic lottery. While average parents produce brilliant kids less frequently, there are a lot more average people.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[drsquare]

The problem isn't the stupid people breeding too much, it's the so-called "smart" people not breeding enough. We're on our way to a societal collapse because of it

Take a look at your nearest council estate, jobless thugs with 18 kids from 15 different mothers, all on benefits with a state-provided house. Stupidity is encouraged, intelligence is punished with taxes to support said stupidity.

And if we need more people to breed, why are we having to build more houses and pave-over the countryside? Surely that would only be necessary if the population was increasing?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[willabr]

With massive WARFARE systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now SPIN out of control, and you're paying for it.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Mark of THE CITY]

Would you really trust the government (or anyone else for that matter) to decide what consitutes good parenting?

What about parents who don't have half a clue and, knowingly or not, hide this ignorance from anyone who could intervene? Dumping on government folly is good sport, but shouldn't there be some way to keep the smart kids of not-so-smart parents from falling through the cracks?

We test life-critical systems. Shouldn't we regard parenting as life-critical and hold someone's parenting beliefs and skills up to critical examination?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shaitand]

Killing off the dumb, weak, and defective results in a stronger genepool tomorrow. Even if you don't believe in evolution, selection is solidly proven. We engage in selection with crops and cattle consistantly with immense proven success over the course of centuries. Plants and even show dogs have benefited from selection. There is no reason to believe it would be any less successful in human animals.

Reduction in population is a moot point. Humans no longer have successful predators and our population will only continue to grow out of control. As a species the death of even a billion of the stupid and weak would only server to strengthen us and have no significant impact on our population.

"The only objective measure for the success of the human race is its population. The socialist governemnt is best by that measure."

Nonesense. The only objective measure for the success of the human race is persistance. It doesn't matter how many of us there are so long as we are capable of surviving natural selection. Increased population is only one way of doing that.

Humans have a massive population unhibited population growth and base and are unlikely go extinct because there aren't enough of them to survive a catastrophe. At this point technical and intellectual progress seem far more likely to enable our species to continue.

For instance, the biggest weakness we have atm is that we can be destroyed by a disaster of planetary scale. I highly doubt we are going to breed our way off the planet. Breeding might provide the immediate motivation but intellect and vigorous health are the only things that will actually make doing so possible when the motivation becomes strong enough.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[ShieldW0lf]

The population is only increasing because the baby boomers haven't died yet. And the problem will start when they retire, not when they die. When they retire and come to discover that the long life their medicine has brought them is of little comfort when there simply are not enough young people to care for them when they can no longer work. They are going to discover that when that happens, the riches they sacrificed their family for are of scant comfort when they are all competing for the aid and attention of the few young people whose hands are not to arthritic to hold a tool and market forces then drive massive inflation. You will find many, many old people at that point waving their entire life savings in the air looking for someone to help them, and there simply won't be enough healthy young people to help them all at any price.

The point is not to breed more to solve this problem; short of a massive wave of immigration by mature adults, this problem simply will not be fixed. The bed is made and they are going to have to lie in it. The point is not to repeat the mistakes of our parents and grandparents and sell out our family life and our future in exchange for endless labour, empty alcolades and hollow materialism.

When the baby boomers actually start to die off, you're going to see a LOT of empty houses.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[composer777]

That makes you quite different than most people who have wealth. Just keep in mind, that poor people aren't "stupid". While I may have said that in an abrasive manner earlier, it might save your life if you ditch some of your classist misconcenptions. If you are saying the things you said out loud earlier on a forum, there is no doubt that you are broadcasting it when you are out and about. Keep in mind that you might offend one of the "stupid" people unintentionally.

P.S. While your story is somewhat inspiring, it's interesting that I have a hard time telling the difference between someone born with a silver spoon in their mouth, at least online. I guess you are implying that everyone you grew up with was lazy, or genetically inferior in some way?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Mark of THE CITY]

A few years ago, the cellist Yo-Yo Ma signed CDs at a Costco in or near San Francisco. So, maybe you should leave them out... :)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Sir Pallas]

The article is not about evolution, it is about *rapid* evolution of the brain.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[anOminousCow]

To be a teacher should require as much education as it does to become a Doctor - possibly more

It used to be this way, about 100 years ago. Teachers usually had a couple of years of education beyond H.S. Doctors on the other hand just hung out a shingle that said 'Doctor' on their shop.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I've found that people who have IQs that are under about 90 or so have much higher rates of ending up in jail, or so the records I'm forced to process by my job suggest. Those who are in jail tend to breed less, so there may be another factor at work that is influencing things.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Minna Kirai]

The Bush family dynasty is the prime example of how this theory fails miserably.

Contradicting yourself very strongly. Family dynasties were tremendously more important in pre-modern societies. You know, monarchies? Where heriditary power included literally whimsical life or death? And the duke could invoke premire noctum rights to try impregnating every single mature woman in his fiefdom?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Ihlosi]

Unfortunately socialist governments are a recent invention, and they're quickly undoing what natural selection used to take place in the wild. With massive welfare systems now in place in many countries, the dumbest people can now breed out of control, and you're paying for it.

That was already possible in the Roman empire. And I wouldn't call 2000 years "recent". "Panem et circenses", what's that if not welfare ?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shutdown -p now]

This is a bad idea. It assumes that medical knowledge (and not, say, ethical knowledge, or spritual knowledge, or personal knowledge) is required to make the decision.

Yes, this is exactly what I assert. But I'd gladly hear your arguments as to why 'spiritual knowledge' (BTW, care to elaborate what that is?) should play any part in this equation.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[shutdown -p now]

To me, the reply to the question you raise is very simple -- one needn't even consider the ethical ramifications: humans are simply not intelligent/developed enough to direct their own evolution. We barely understand how genes work and interact over time

While I do believe you're being overcautious here, my emphasis wasn't so much on playing with what we don't quite yet understand, as it was on using the body of knowledge we already have. We can predict certain genetical diseases with high probability given certain information about parents; in my opinion, not using this knowledge is unethical (towards the children who are born with various seriously crippling disabilities, particularly mental ones).

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Lally Singh]

Are the "stupid people" really procreating that much? Think about it, everyone goes to school for some time in their life in a good portion of the world. Those who many /.ers would think of as stupid are pretty high up there, relative to three generations ago. Most jobs require some set of skills and cognitive work. Hell most starbucks baristas I know have a few years of college under their belt.

~49% of the workforce in Northern VA (my town) has a college degree.

While we can look at TV and think "Oh my God this shit is terrible," it does provide some mental stimulation. Not much by our heavily educated standards, but it's certainly better than looking at a rock. People do learn a lot through the media they absorb, and that media does make people think -- not ponder quantum physics think, but I think the butler killed Mr Plum think.

With that frame of reference for who's smart and who's not, we don't really have that many dumb people around. They're relegated to the corners of society, or equally often, simple errand jobs. Even the stereotype of the "brute" isn't really too valid (IMHO). For example, most laborers I know, while uneducated, are fundamentally thinking people who can hold a good conversation (usually about engine displacements, quarter mile times, etc).

Interestingly enough, notice how the poorer classes tend to take in more unhealthy foods? Usually due McDonalds and the like. And of course, level of healthcare is another issue. Either way, it seems that there's a good correlation between health and income. And I think there are darwinian repercussions to better health in one group over another.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[IndependentVik]

Actually, the people who run Costco are extremely progressive. They treat their employees well, offer good healthcare, etc.

So I think you and the great-GP jumped the gun a little.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[japhmi]

Eugenics was only a single generation (or perhaps 2 generations) of testing. breeding favorable traits (or any trait) requires many many generations.

to see this, just look at dog breeds.

And look at all of the problems purebreads tend to have.

Genetic diversity is a GOOD thing.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Minna Kirai]

He only brought that up later, and even then I think a lot of it was hidden from the general population.

No, it wasn't hidden, that would've been counter-productive. The average voter was MORE Jew-hating than Hitler, and he leveraged that fact to boost his popularity when things got rough.

For example, the Nazi philosophy of eugenics logically dictated that truely moronic retards should be the first people removed from the population. But the public wouldn't stand for that kind of cruelty, so Hitler switched to the Jews, which were an easier to convince his people to kill.

He rose to power by basically going up against the communists

True. And since the communists were atheists, they didn't think religious heritage was important, so they were the only German political party to accept Jews as full members. That association further encouraged Nazi judenhas (making it more plausible that Jews were secretly influencing the USSR to damage Germany)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Minna Kirai]

having fair skin light eyes and light hair causes people to immediately treat you differently.

Pale skin makes you more visible, particularly at night. That is a disadvantage in dangerous, combat situations where people are likely to try killing you. But in semi-modern societies where group cooperation is valuable, it makes your facial expressions easier to read and increases socialization.

At least, that's how I account for the fact that even Bantu Africans have a marked preference for paler skin (and assuming it isn't a kind of Euro-envy)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

I disagree - in fact its even more important at that age. You learn so much more in those years than do you in the later years, not in regurgitatable (word?) facts or theories, but in how to think and how to learn. Later on, education's returns (in my experience) are largely based on the drive and motivation picked up in those early years, especially in college, where the professor is quite often useless and you end up teaching yourself - kind of like the real world works, that whole becoming self-sufficient thing ;)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Cruithne]

I'd mod you up if i could - excellent point, and one i hadnt thought of :)

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[saskboy]

Organized religion probably started at least partially as a means to control reproduction. Think about it dispassionately for a moment if you're a strongly religious person and take offence to a question like that.

Who determines who can marry or not? Is it a sin to reproduce before the coupling is sanctioned by the church?

Society also had built in predjudices which we've since lost [I'm not saying losing the predjudices has been bad, it just has consequences that might not have yet been countered in other ways], such as scorn for unwed mothers. Now that reproduction is available to anyone, whether or not they have money or a permanent partner, there are very few controls on who actually can have a child. This has very serious implications on society, when a parent who has no regard for societal norms raises many children with the same disregard for their fellow humans. These kids can wreak terror on schools, peers, and property. And they can grow up to be George W. Bush.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[True Grit]

When the baby boomers actually start to die off, you're going to see a LOT of empty houses.

Having read down to this point some comments:

1) This entire argument is fairly irrelevant to TFA because TFA is about changes detected in the human race at least 5000 years ago, whereas the argument here is about a change in the human race, or rather, our society, only beginning within the last 1000 years or so. We should put this argument on hold for about 4,000 years until we can find, if any, genetic evidence of our species' most recent changes. :)

2) About evolution continuing in the last 1000 years: When those usual selection pressures are no longer accurate predictions of a person's likelyhood to successfully procreate, then its hard to argue that evolution, even if the *mechanics* of that genetic process continue, are anywhere near as important now as compared to human society's actions which are affecting who's genes are being passed on versus those that don't. And don't get caught up in the smart vs. dumb argument, the actual situation is a little more complex than that, because its not just "smart" people who are avoiding procreation in the Western world, there are a lot of "ordinary" people who realize they can't afford a nice life AND children at the same time. It is only the extreme poor, who have nothing to lose in having children, who are doing so, and being smart, or at least not being dumb, DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL AVOID POVERTY IN THIS WORLD. All the studies of this have shown the children with the best chance of success are those born to parents with means. People who are born into poverty tend to remain in poverty, NO MATTER HOW "SMART" THEY ARE. It is really the selection pressures of our society that are mucking up evolution's mechanisms, more than it is individuals, smart or dumb, that are doing so.

3) About population decrease: I don't know where you guys are getting your numbers, but the US in particular is expected to have a dramatically *increasing* population in the decades ahead (I've read articles from Germany and France about their dilemma and all those articles mentioned the US being an exception). Heck, just google for "us population growth" and you'll find what I just did. Hmmm, a net gain of one new American every 10 seconds! How did you get the math to make that a net decrease!?! Is this the "New Math" I've heard of? :) In fact, we are the lone exception to the rest of the Western world, but only temporarily, because that exception itself will not stand for very long once the issue becomes serious to the other individual nations of the West. Why? Because our exception is based on a much higher immigration than most European countries currently have (a new net immigrant every 26 seconds, see link above), and when the pressure on those countries rises to significant levels, they too will "solve" the problem by raising immigration from the rest of the world. So no, we won't have any "empty homes", we will just replace the population that our domestic population does not provide by procreation, with a "fresh and new" IMPORTED population. The long AND short term problem humanity is facing is *still* the problem of population *GROWTH*, not decline.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Anonymous Coward]

That's really the neat part; that it shows that this idea of "survival of the dumbest" is apparently not what has been happening. Instead, there is every reason to think we have been getting smarter.

'thing is, nerds like me with their superior brains can't seem to get laid, whilst some slappers from the housing estates can't seem to keep their knickers on. Which kinda blows your theory out of the water.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[cfuse]

By the way, you're sorely misguided about the whole "stupid people breeding out of control" issue too. The problem isn't the stupid people breeding too much, it's the so-called "smart" people not breeding enough. We're on our way to a societal collapse because of it.

The problem is that people think that high IQ is the ultimate advantage in life, whereas nature is more interested in those who reproduce. Unless being smart gets you laid more often (unlikely) then it isn't going to be strongly evolutionarily favoured.

If anything, the ratio of smart people has gone up in modern times - not down.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Vintermann]

Who decides what "smart" means then? And don't say IQ tests. The first IQ tests showed that men were much smarter than women. Then that became politically unacceptable, so the tests were changed. Still, non-whites were real idiots, according to the tests. Then that became unacceptable, too, and the tests were changed to remove "cultural bias". For each of these changes, the predictive power of IQ tests with respect to economic success sank - of course. Everyone knows it's harder to get rich if you're a woman or you don't speak the national language very well.

IQ tests are just the most successful in a long history of "scientific" attempts to justify our prejudices.

As to keeping people from falling through the cracks, whether they are smart/fit/aryan enough or not, some states have experimented systematically for a long time. They are called welfare states, and it's quite nice living in one, actually :-)

Parents are held accountable for their parenting beliefs, to the degree that they are actually life-critical. Just ask a christian scientist or a jehovah's witness. But going to college is hardly life-critical.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong this is

[Mark of THE CITY]

Maybe intelligence is like porn; you just know when you see it.

huh

[HostGeekZ]

I always knew my brain was never fully developed and I don't think it ever will be.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

My brain continues to evolve because I keep killing the weak cells with beer.

take that you intelligent desing thoricists

[muzik4machines]

Evolution will never stop, here is another proof

Re:take that you intelligent desing thoricists

[higuy48]

I was pondering whether or not to totally theadjack this topic, but it seems you have made the decision for me.

This won't stop them. This is mircoevolution. What they're claiming is that we couldn't have possibly speciated from very simple cells and organisms to what we are today. They are disputing macroevolution.

Re:take that you intelligent desing thoricists

[richdun]

...now if only natural selection would remove those who type too fast to think or spell check.

Duh?

[Dimensio]

Evolution is not attempting to attain a certain "goal" at which it stops. Evolution is simply the result of certain genetic traits being selected based upon environmental pressures. It shouldn't be too surprising that evolution still occurs in humans so long as there is a situation where some genetic traits are more likely to be passed on through reproduction than others.

I guess this could be news to people who don't actually understand evolution -- which, given the popularity of pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" and non-science like "Creation Science" -- probably is quite a bit. Unfortunately, experience shows that they don't really care to learn anything about evolution anyway, so chances are they'll do little but mock the findings without even trying to understand them.

Re:Duh?

[aussiedood]

Mod this man up!

Re:Duh?

[rbarreira]

Yeah, if we talk about the past 60,000 years period this doesn't amaze me much. But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution. Our society doesn't favor it.

Re:Duh?

[PhatKat]

the way this article is put seems to sensationalize it, implicitly comparing evolution to progress or something like it. Evolution cannot be stopped in living population under any circumstances except what the astute poster above me stated. But even in that case I would argue that evolution isn't static... even if traits are passed on with the same likeliness, they will still be combined in different ways.

Re:Duh?

[brianf711]

Actually, evolution is more complicated than just natural selection.

There are 5 conditions where Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium does not apply and thus evolution is occuring.

While natural selection is one of these, the others include non-random mating, mutations, genetic drift (small populations may be more sensitive to random events) and migration (gene flow).

Since all of these events are occuring at some degree, the short response to the article is of course evolution is occurring, as you pointed out, but not just because of natural selection. What is interesting, and I didn't read the article so bear with me, is whether there is a correlation with "intelligence" and surviving offspring. This is where natural selection would favor or disfavor intelligence. Perhaps more intelligent people have fewer children, but are able to raise them and get them access to medicine and other factors that could enhance their survival, but maybe this isn't the case as well.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this could be news to people who don't actually understand evolution -- which, given the popularity of pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design" and non-science like "Creation Science" -- probably is quite a bit.

The proponents of these viewpoints often promote large family sizes to their followers because it's far easier to indoctrinate blank slates than people who already have minds of their own. Ironically, this creates evolutionary pressure against the understanding of evolution.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Th chimpanzee genome sequencing has just been completed and the scientific community are beginning to to examine the "diff human_genome chimp_genome" result. The diff is not really that big. (even smaller depending upon the individual concerned) :)

Re:Duh?

[nothingx]

Evolution is not attempting to attain a certain "goal" at which it stops.

Well, yes and no. While it is true that there is no explicitly defined "goal" state, evolution does try to converge on an optimal state. Optimal is where any random mutation results in a less successful structure, as defined by some heuristic function... which is usually survival in animals. In an ecosystem as complex as Earth, this optimal state for every organism is in a constant state of flux. As one species becomes better at eatting another, the eatten need to evolve new defense mechanisms.

Another intersting thing about evolution is a state called a local minima. This is where a species converges on a less than optimal solution because it doesn't have enough mutation to sway the trend out of the rut. One way to attempt to avoid this in genetic alogrithms with with technique called simulated annealing.

Re:Duh?

[1u3hr]

Yeah, if we talk about the past 60,000 years period this doesn't amaze me much. But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution. Our society doesn't favor it.

Recently, in the Middle Ages, the Black Death wiped out something like 30% of the population of Europe. Some genes that seem to provide defence against that became much more prevalent. Currently in Africa where AIDS is infecting 30% or more of some countries there must be a fierce selection process.

Re:Duh?

[Tatarize]

But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution.

As noted in the above post, evolution works when there are more favorable genes to be found. I would note that it's also true about negative selection on bad genes (although it's really the same thing). The gene for hemophilia is decreasing in frequency, because people with the gene die (also a large number got HIV in 80s). Whenever a genetic disease kills a person, that's evolution.

Our society doesn't favor it.

Our society doesn't favor crime, rape, murder, ect. And it doesn't have any effect. Favor by society doesn't stop things from happening. "The US congress repealed the law of gravity."

Re:Duh?

[rbarreira]

Agreed, but if we talk about brains...

Re:Duh?

[rbarreira]

As noted in the above post, evolution works when there are more favorable genes to be found. I would note that it's also true about negative selection on bad genes (although it's really the same thing). The gene for hemophilia is decreasing in frequency, because people with the gene die (also a large number got HIV in 80s). Whenever a genetic disease kills a person, that's evolution.

This article is about the brain though...

Our society doesn't favor crime, rape, murder, ect. And it doesn't have any effect. Favor by society doesn't stop things from happening. "The US congress repealed the law of gravity."

Invalid argument or you misunderstood my sentence, please try again.

Re:Duh?

[smartdreamer]

Mod parent up!!

Their is nothing more (useful) to say than what parent said.

Re:Duh?

[gad_zuki!]

> Evolution is simply the result of certain genetic traits being selected based upon environmental pressures.

The scope of this article is over 60,000 years, the headline suggests the brain is "still" evolving. When you consider modern medicine and modern living the most basic mechanics of evolution (natural selection) aren't nearly as powerful as they were in hunter/gatherer societies.

So, it is news, and whats even more misleading is that the suggestion that evolution is happening due to environmental factors now. What factors exactly? Modern life is about preserving life no matter what and previously people who would have died due to a weak immune system, mental illness, etc are happily (or miserably) reproducing and passing their genes. Seems like evolution is in action but when the environment gives mixed signals, whose to say where its "going."

Re:Duh?

[Tatarize]

>>This article is about the brain though...

Oh, because the brain evolves independently from the rest of our bodies, and it's evolution has stopped. Thank you Dr. Miss-the-point

>>Invalid argument or you misunderstood my sentence, please try again.

Correct your sentence. I had to take a stab at it, because it didn't make any sense.

Re:Duh?

[Michael Wolf]

"Evolution is simply the result of certain genetic traits being selected based upon environmental pressures. It shouldn't be too surprising that evolution still occurs in humans so long as there is a situation where some genetic traits are more likely to be passed on through reproduction than others."

Both sentences are true, but the latter implies we are *no longer* evolving. Sure, we *were* evolving up to very recently. But now or soon, when almost everyone born reaches maturity (so to speak ...) and reproduces, the selection pressure is down to zero, and evolution ceases. So long as reproduction is not based upon fitness, natural selection will not be occurring. Perhaps artificial selection (e.g. eugenics) may alter humans for better or worse, and maybe non-genetic interventions (e.g. smart drugs) may alter humans when applied after conception, but otherwise we're not changing, except for the gradual degredation that will occur whenever flaws (say, being slightly less intelligent, having a lousy sense of smell, etc.) are not selected against.

Re:Duh?

[defuzzificator]

Even if confirmed, these findings would only be yet another confirmation of microevolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution Intelligent design and creation theory both readily accept microevolution. This is observable science. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter4.asp

Re:Duh?

[jamesh]

Whenever a genetic disease kills a person, that's evolution.

Not quite. You'd have to be killed before you were able to pass on your genetic material.

Strictly speaking, evolution is just what happens when an organism (or group of organisms) has a combination of features (as dictated by their dna) that allow them to have more offspring who in turn carry that dna and are able to reproduce more successfully.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree -- evolution stops when it has produced immortal, sterile organisms. :)

Re:Duh?

[king-manic]

Yeah, if we talk about the past 60,000 years period this doesn't amaze me much. But if we talk about the present, I would say I doubt there's much evolution. Our society doesn't favor it.

The IQ in general has been rising. Certain populations like ashkenazi jews and east asians show a generally high intelligence that can be attributed to selective factors that favor intelligence.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no. While it is true that there is no explicitly defined "goal" state, evolution does try to converge on an optimal state. Optimal is where any random mutation results in a less successful structure, as defined by some heuristic function... which is usually survival in animals. In an ecosystem as complex as Earth, this optimal state for every organism is in a constant state of flux. As one species becomes better at eatting another, the eatten need to evolve new defense mechanisms.

That's what he just got done saying.

Re:Duh?

[king-manic]

The scope of this article is over 60,000 years, the headline suggests the brain is "still" evolving. When you consider modern medicine and modern living the most basic mechanics of evolution (natural selection) aren't nearly as powerful as they were in hunter/gatherer societies.

Evolution has no value for "powerful". Selection is either fatal or non. It might not be as common for people to die but differences in rates of change are common. We're at a fairly stabel platuae for change but there are still a lot of selective factors. Our world is complicated. Social mores, technology, traffic, disease prevention, ect.. all select against those who can't cope.

Re:Duh?

[AJWM]

But now or soon, when almost everyone born reaches maturity (so to speak ...) and reproduces,

False premise. True, infant mortality is way down, and -- barring teenage drunk driving, which probably kills more pre-reproduction individuals than anything else (no, I don't have source, it's a wild ass guess) -- most people born do reach maturity, but by no means do they all reproduce. Hell, look at the slashdot crowd ;-) Seriously, lots of people don't have kids, for one reason or another. Sometimes it's a concious choice, sometimes it's (possibly environmentally induced) partial sterility. To the extent those reasons are influenced even slightly by genetics (susceptiblity to environmental chemicals, perhaps), there's evolution in action.

Re:Duh?

[Tatarize]

Actually strickly speaking you have to be killed off before you can breed as often as you would have had you not died. Or somehow by your death make your children less fit, such as doing worse because they were raised without a father/mother.

Just because you had a kid, doesn't mean the genetic disorder doesn't select against you.

Re:Duh?

[rbarreira]

First of all - please don't use generalized arguments just to run away from the discussion about the matter at hand...

Oh, because the brain evolves independently from the rest of our bodies, and it's evolution has stopped. Thank you Dr. Miss-the-point

See above.

Correct your sentence. I had to take a stab at it, because it didn't make any sense.

Maybe I misused the word favor, I'm not sure though (english is not my first language). What I meant was that the circumstances which emerge from the way our civilization works make evolution much less prominent than it used to be...

Re:Duh?

[Threni]

> While it is true that there is no explicitly defined "goal" state, evolution
> does try to converge on an optimal state

Well, the goal there is to "try to converge on an optimal state". Of course, evolution isn't trying to do anything, except perhaps in your imagination.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your usage of 'favor' was correct, but not clear. The other person misinterpreted you. He should have known better once you pointed out that he had misunderstood you, though. Or perhaps English is also his second language.

Re:Duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's probably not enough for your children to "do worse" due to not being raised by you. Lack of good parenting does not commonly lead to the offspring having fewer children, which is all that matters for evolution. It doesn't matter if your offspring are poorer or less well educated, or less well brought up because you died early from a genetic disorder. All that matters is whether they have more or less children.

Re:Duh?

[rbarreira]

Thanks for the reply :) The fact that he didn't yet reply shows something, I guess...

Counter-evidence...

[FyRE666]

Researchers Say Human Brain is Still Evolving

I guess these guys have never browsed Slashdot at -1 then... And how do they explain George Bush, Beanie Babies and the Crazy Frog? And where did they get a 60,000 year old brain from to find these genes - Joan Rivers' skull? No no no, none of this is adding up...

Re:Counter-evidence...

[cortana]

"how do they explain George Bush, Beanie Babies and the Crazy Frog?"

Remember that the bell curve is symmetric. :)

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Tim]

And how do they explain George Bush, Beanie Babies and the Crazy Frog?

Evolution optimizes for survival, nothing else. And unfortunately, in this country, there is a strong selective pressure against intelligence.

Sarcasm and "bling" on the other hand....

Re:Counter-evidence...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

OK, OK, so a spike of 16 standard deviations at the low end of the scale is going to pull the whole thing to the left...

Re:Counter-evidence...

[macdaddy357]

It would be great if the human brain would evolve in such a way that it would be repulsive to zombies, and they wouldn't want to eat out brains any more.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[John Seminal]

"how do they explain George Bush, Beanie Babies and the Crazy Frog?"

Remember that the bell curve is symmetric. :)

Yeah, with whites at one end and blacks on the other. ;)

Now flame me away...

As for Bush, he is very smart. It is all an act of being dumb. When he was governor, he did not mistakes when giving speeches. What happened was Bush decided to win the presidency, he needed to win the south. So he became more like them. :p

Seriously, Bush is not a dummy. He went to Yale. If he was so stupid, how did he get into Yale? And why is everyone bitching when a black gets into The University of Michigan School of Law? How is it different?

Now Troll me....

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Aggressiva]

"he did not mistakes when giving speeches."

Nice grammar considering what a dummy you believe GWB to be. What's that you say? You made a mistake? Well no shit, that's what humans do, isn't it?

Re:Counter-evidence...

[znu]

You might need to consider tweaking your definition of "intelligence". Don't think of the sort of intelligence it requires to write computer software -- think of the sort of intelligence it requires to make people laugh at parties, or to successfully navigate social hierarchies. These types of intelligence are definitely not selected against.

Moreover, I'd like to see a study showing an actual selection against more technical sorts of intelligence. The stereotypical anti-social geek isn't, in my experience, actually all that representative of the total pool of people with strong technical skills. And anyway, even geeks seem to primarily be at a disadvantage with members of the opposite sex during high school and college. It's not clear that there's any significant correlation between being popular in school and having kids later in life.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a freakin` genius.

Thinking outside of the box. I like that.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny post but have you ever considered that you might be on the wrong side of the fence? Perhaps you are among the less evolved ones?

And if you have never entertained such a possibility then I can guarantee you that indeed you are (irrespective of what opinions you hold) :)

Re:Counter-evidence...

[quantum bit]

But what would happen if a zombie-resistant human somehow got infected and turned into a super-zombie?

Re:Counter-evidence...

[king-manic]

Sarcasm and "bling" on the other hand....

Takes intelligence to do either. Blign needs some intelligence, and sarcasm is based entirly on intelligence. I know you kidding, I'm just the annoying straight man to you act.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[LifesABeach]

I read the article and thought, "Hey! Fantastic, I am SMARTER than my dad!" Then I'm reminded of the Pin Head that's ruling the worlds greatest power, and my joy is quietly crushed.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[DigiShaman]

And unfortunately, in this country, there is a strong selective pressure against intelligence.

I got news for you. It takes quite a bit of collective intelligence to foster and maintain productivity based on our system of capitalism. Also might I add, that the higher your college degree alumni prestige is, the greater your chance for a better paying wage.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

"in this country" implies you are a citizen of the United States or a guest. Sorry you hate your country/host... How about the moon landing? The integrated circuit? But ya, we're only about bling and we don't like intelligence.

And for someone so stupid, Bush beats you gys alot doesn't he?

Re:Counter-evidence...

[FidelCatsro]

" If he was so stupid, how did he get into Yale?"
His parents are very very rich : his father was and still is very very influential .

Re:Counter-evidence...

[karpediem]

No no no, none of this is adding up...

I'm glad someone said it! This is all a load of bologna! http://drdino.com/

Re:Counter-evidence...

[kabocox]

Evolution optimizes for survival, nothing else. And unfortunately, in this country, there is a strong selective pressure against intelligence.

Sarcasm and "bling" on the other hand....

Oh, great so when those aliens finally come and visit, we'll just be extremely sarcastic and present them lots of shinies. Well, hopefully our shinies will be wanted by others. As long as we have something that we can sell, we'll do ok.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[sgt_doom]

Hold it! Hold it! George Bush is proof positive that "intelligent design" exists...as is that assassin, Pat Robertson, and Phyllis Schafly - who says the offshoring of American jobs is wrong, unless it is being done by neoconservatives and evangelicals.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[idsofmarch]

As for Bush, he is very smart. It is all an act of being dumb...Bush decided to win the presidency, he needed to win the south. So he became more like them.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this statement, if being is pretending to be dumb to win the south that doesn't that say something terrible about the south and about Bush's character that he would pretend to be something he's not.

Well, he dad was alumni and a powerful one at that.

As for the rest of your post, I think your brain may have blown a spring or something, because it made absolutely no sense.

Re:Counter-evidence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you extemely stupid? Dubya got into Yale because of daddy's fortune and power. You must be one of those black on the other end.

Sounds promising....

[sigmaseven]

Any chance of speeding up the process before the 2008 elections?

/in Kansas, so it might not even apply, anyhow

Re:Sounds promising....

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Any chance of speeding up the [evolutionary] process before the 2008 elections?

Yeah - cut it out with the "flamebait", asshole!

WRONGTHINKING WILL BE PUNISHED! CONFORM! CONFORM! CONFORM!

Can someone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

to this simpleton, what is significant about the ability to drink milk during adulthood? Could we not in the past?

Re:Can someone explain...

[ozmanjusri]

what is significant about the ability to drink milk during adulthood?

Most of the world's population can't digest lactose (milk sugar) after the age of about 4. The ability to digest lactose appears to have evolved along with dairy farming. Those parts of the world which did not practice dairy farming remain lactose intolerant.
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/june/lactose .htm

Re:Can someone explain...

[modecx]

I really should thank my ancestors for allowing me to comfortably suck down bowl after bowl of Rice Crispies drowning in milk someday. It's the best thing that's come about since we lost our vestigial tails, I think. Just imagine what a PITA it would be to sit down and exercise our favorite deadly sins with a tail jabbing our spines!

Re:Can someone explain...

[Spy der Mann]

Now if only this gene could be inserted into adults, i could finally get rid of having to pay more for delactosated milk... :(

Re:Can someone explain...

[mattjb0010]

Most of the world's population can't digest lactose (milk sugar) after the age of about 4. The ability to digest lactose appears to have evolved along with dairy farming. Those parts of the world which did not practice dairy farming remain lactose intolerant.

There are similar patterns with respect to alcohol metabolism, based on whether populations boiled water or used diluted alcohol in order to kill bacteria. This also occurs for other drugs, such as warfarin (a common anticoagulant drug).

Re:Can someone explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

See...you're making the mistake of counting blacks and asians as people. They are not.

Re:Can someone explain...

[tepples]

Just imagine what a PITA it would be to sit down and exercise our favorite deadly sins with a tail jabbing our spines!

"Deadly sins with a tail"? Does a sloth even have a tail to speak of? Slightly less non-seriously, anthropomorphic cartoon characters with tails typically sit on stools or chairs that are designed to accommodate a tail.

yeah, but...

[heeeraldo]

...does it run OSX-86?

Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously

Re:Obviously

[MikeFM]

There has never been any reason to think that just because a trait evolves into much of the population that it will reach all of the population. Your videos are probably of the population missing these, and other genes, that increase mental ability.

The intelligent are now protecting the stupid in much the same way mankind has protected cattle. The stupid tend to breed with other stupid while the intelligent tend to breed with other intelligent people. At some point this should lead to a split in the species as the two groups evolve in different directions. Still it'd take quite a change to make the two groups incompatible for mating so you'll likely see the occasional mix.

Stupid people tend to breed faster than intelligent people but they also tend to live less healthy lifes which probably increases their mortality rate. I'd still imagine stupid people produce more children that live long enough to themselves reproduce than intelligent people though. To bad this topic is taboo because it'd be pretty interesting to study.

In the meantime - geeks unite and breed! Don't let the moron inherit the Earth! The fewer children you have the more likely they'll be wage slaves to stupid people. Fight back - have sex (with yourself doesn't count)!

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

"At some point this should lead to a split in the species as the two groups evolve in different directions"

Already happened...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_st ate_divide/

Re:Obviously

[Spy der Mann]

In the meantime - geeks unite and breed!
Uh... I think geeks need the "handsomeness" gene. Perhaps we're a different species already? :-?

Re:Obviously

[MikeFM]

LOL we have female geeks too. Surely they will like the male geeks if those geeks will just shower now and then.

Re:Obviously

[Guppy06]

I suspect the female geeks are attracted to the male geeks as much as the male geeks to the female. When you get right down to it, everybody wants dumb and pretty, which is why the species will be reduced to vapid personalities inhabiting bodies made by DuPont.

Re:Obviously

[eh2o]

Just about any male geek would gladly shower in exchange for sex.

If only things were so efficient.

Re:Obviously

[MikeFM]

You have to do it before you're likely to even get an offer. Waiting until someone offers the exchange rarely works. Darn picky women!

Re:Obviously

[DigiShaman]

To bad this topic is taboo because it'd be pretty interesting to study.

Here is my personal study based on observations in America. Birth statistics will very greatly depending on country and culture however.

African Americans = Violent and very athletic. They tend to have large families

Caucasians = Smarter then African Americans, but lack their superior athletic body. Caucasians however are very adaptable to differences in climatic change. They tend to have the moderate size families.

Asians = Highly Intelligent and cunning compaired to Caucasians and African American. They have the least athletic bodies. They tend to have the smallest size families.

Whether or not there is scientific data to back up my personal observations, I don't see one "race" having any advantage over the other. What I do notice however, is that nature loves to play around with different survival strategies with all life on Earth. As such, we not look at the Human species as an exception to this rule.

Re:Obviously

[MikeFM]

I am attracted to female geeks. Smart, with a slightly off sense of humor, is sexy to me. Personality and intelligence is something a plastic surgeon can't supply.

Plastic girls aren't worth my time. Might as well have sex with a blow up doll.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Why not "if you shower, we'll make out". Or, if a shower was the only thing in the way, then after the annual shower, you'd get laid, and notice the correlation. Result: clean geeks washing every day.

But, no. Women are just as shallow and interested in the ephemera as men (partly because men are less interested than women and marketing seem to think, partly because women are more interested than they would like to think, based on their self-image and marketing). So, they want stuff moved, they want you to listen (in the right way!), they want sympathy and they want ruggedness.

We're just happy if they're naked.

(props to Jeff!)

Re:Obviously

[blahplusplus]

"In the meantime - geeks unite and breed!"

Again stupidity and intelligence are so vaguely defined when used in a conversation that they become meaningless, I know plenty of intelligent assholes that would make good providers but shitty parents, I know lots of poor people who'd make great parents but shitty providers. Just because you have "intelligence" (a degree, a job or whatever) doesn't mean you know yourself or know enough about how to use it to raise a family.

You make it sound so easy, many geeks seek their opposites. I know plenty of smart guys who simply do not want people as intelligent as themselves as their mates, many smart people are pessimistic, overanalyze things, and can be very annoying. I'll take the average chick with amazing caring motherly traits, over the geeky chick who's hardcore about her career any day of the week.

We have enough smart cold people in the world who think they are fucking gods gift to the world when they are the furthest thing from it.

Re:Obviously

[TerranFury]

Here is my personal study based on observations on the map "The Hunters." Unit production statistics vary greatly depending on unpredictible factors however.

Zerg = Violent melee attackers and very cheap. They tend to use large armies of zerglings.

Terran = Smarter than Zerg, but lack their superior spawning rates. Terrans however are very adaptable, what with their floating buildings and moving bases. They tend to have moderate size armies.

Protoss = Highly intelligent and cunning compared to Terran and Zerg. They have the smallest armies and most expensive units, but make up for it in quality.

Whether or not there is scientific data to back up my personal observations, I don't see one "race" as having any advantage over the other. What I do notice however, is that people love to play around with different strategies on Battle.net. As such, we should expect to observe this in Starcraft just as much as in other games.

In seriousness: Try really getting close to somebody outside your race. Then tell me if you still believe all that.

Me, I'm just not going to play those games. Shooters relieve tension better anyway.

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent up

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Geeks should *NOT* breed with each other.

    1) You'll have boring lives
    2) You'll have autistic kids

Find someone who complements your characteristics, not your female/male clone. While you're at it, find someone from a different population sample than yourself.

Re:Obviously

[Guppy06]

"Plastic girls aren't worth my time."

Then I suppose all that porn on your hard drive is there becuase of the obvious intelligence of the subjects?

Re:Obviously

[MikeFM]

I like porn of freaky geeky girls. Yummy. Glasses, odd colored hair, and maybe some tats and piercings. Girls into anime and Linux. :)

Re:Obviously

[Anonymous Coward]

Asians = Highly Intelligent and cunning compaired to Caucasians and African American. They have the least athletic bodies. They tend to have the smallest size families.

Not to mention their kooky slant eyes and their huge buck teeth.

It seems that all of your vaunted knowledge of race differences comes from Amos and Andy and WW2 propaganda.

Sheesh... what a moron.

This is news?

[HisMother]

Every living thing is evolving. No creatures alive are genetically identical to ones living 60,000 years ago. At that time there were wooly mammoths, and saber-tooth tigers running around.

I suppose you could argue that this is useful ammo against the ID folks, but it's really only the Flying Spaghetti Monster acolytes and other True Believers who have the hubris to believe Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the pinnacle of creation, out of the box.

Re:This is news?

[king-manic]

Every living thing is evolving. No creatures alive are genetically identical to ones living 60,000 years ago. At that time there were wooly mammoths, and saber-tooth tigers running around.

small correction, every living population. individuals don't evolve. They adapt. Populatiosn evolve.

Re:This is news?

[johnnyb]

"I suppose you could argue that this is useful ammo against the ID folks"

Actually, ID folks agree that evolution occurred and is occurring. Most of them also agree with Universal Common Ancestry.

The human brain...

[myowntrueself]

is an organ for cooling the blood.

We actually think with our stomachs.

Obviously the cooling needs of the human body are still increasing over time. Probably linked to global warming.

Re:The human brain...

[Jace of Fuse!]

We actually think with our stomachs.

Nope. Getting warm though. Little lower...

Re:The human brain...

[Overzeetop]

We actually think with our stomachs

You must be a chick. Or a Eunich. There's only one head doing the thinking for most of /.'s readership, and it's not the one sitting on their shoulders.

As for cooling needs, your are certainly correct - it is due to global warming. Which brings us back to the fact that its George W Bush's fault.

It's so nice when all these things tie together so easily.

Re:The human brain...

[Anonymous Coward]

is an organ for cooling the blood.

We actually think with our stomachs.

Obviously the cooling needs of the human body are still increasing over time. Probably linked to global warming.

And everyone knows George Bush is responsible for Global Warming.

So that means... George Bush is the Intelligent Designer!

Re:The human brain...

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not far off. I was having serious problems I won't bore you with in my GI tract during a very depressed spell in my life. I went to a doctor who told me it was psychosomatic and that I should see a psychiatrist. I did, and I went onto SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors). I talked to him about the connection between stomach and mood and he told me that you have more serotonin in your stomach than you do in your brain.

Oh yeah, he also told me that your sinuses are an erectile organ, and there are many people who report changes in the open- or closedness of their sinuses leading up to and during arousal.

Re:The human brain...

[rbarreira]

So that means... George Bush is the Intelligent Designer!

Parsing sentence, standb#!#"%#"$=IFDS==!"#!"# NO CARRIER

Re:The human brain...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming hair is in the process of evolving into cooling vanes much like a stegosaur's plates. Given this possiblity then the punk hair styles are among the most evolved. The excess brain cooling could also explain the punk lifestyles.

Re:The human brain...

[DrEldarion]

Or a Eunich

I was led to believe there was a lot of discussion about eunuchs on this site. I still don't know that linuchs are, though.

Re:The human brain...

[Cro Magnon]

OT, but I love how your sig matches the topic!

Re:The human brain...

[Halthar]

"Yeah baby, right there, you're getting my sinuses SOOOOOO wet!"

"Fernando stood silently and looked at her out of the corner of his eye for a moment. Then,like a mountain lion about to topple it's prey, he lunged his erect sinuses at her young nubile body."

For some reason I don't think that will sell many "romance" novels, or porn.

Re:The human brain...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We actually think with our stomachs."

More accurate than you realize...

The enteric nervous system (in the lining of your gut) contains an estimated ~100 million neurons. A second brain in your stomach. It's much less studied and other than being "related to digestion" we don't know much about it.

-Alex

Re:The human brain...

[myowntrueself]

"The enteric nervous system (in the lining of your gut) contains an estimated ~100 million neurons. A second brain in your stomach."

There is Ancient Chinese Wisdom here.

The Chinese character for 'brain' is etymologically the character for 'stomach'.

Hence we have the computer as, literaly, 'electronic stomach'.

Wisdom indeed.

Geez I figured out I was smarter then my parents

[Anonymous Coward]

years ago

Milk

[Lord Kano]

I both lost and regained the ability to digest milk as an adult.

When I was 25 I went for about 4 months withough ingesting any milk products. When I tried again, I couldn't digest them.

When I was 29 I began to occasionally consume milk products and after a few months I was able to digest it again.

I had no idea that there was anything genetic about the production of the lactase enzyme into adulthood.

LK

Re:Milk

[erroneus]

Sounds like a case of "you don't use it, you lose it." That said, there are some people who could never have it.

Consider that natures way of weening many animals is for the young to eventually lose the ability to utilize its mother's milk which requires it to seek nutrition elsewhere.

It's interesting to consider what driving evolutionary force produced this successful gene though... does anyone know how long humans have been consuming the milk of other animals?

Re:Milk

[PlasticMetal]

My milk consumtion to farting frequency ratio is very annoying for myself and my neighbourhood. I hope r^Hevolution will fix it soon.

Re:Milk

[Jodka]

I both lost and regained the ability to digest milk as an adult.

This is more likely due to changes in your intestinal flora over time than evolving at the age of 29 a gene for adult production of lactase.

Re:Milk

[ducomputergeek]

Similar thing happened to me about the time I turned 22 or so, milk and i just didn't get along. Now so long as I stick to small amounts, if I have cream with my coffee and milk on cereal in the morning, no cheese at lunch or dinner.

Of all dairy products, cheese is the worst followed by ice cream. Just a little cheese and my stomach goes nuts.

Of course I've had to get used to carrying a couple lactiad pills with me, but its something else to remember to take them before I start eating dairy. Fortunately the lactase pills do help a lot, especially at late night work sessions when pizza is ordered.

Re:Milk

[markass530]

I had a friend who couldn't ingest milk products, so we snuck some cheese in a big sandwhich, he destroyed the subway bathroom.

Re:Milk

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that your brain is still devolving?

Re:Milk

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you're a real asshole.

Re:Milk

[tg2k]

I love drinking milk, but the ability to "digest" it may be next to useless with the kind of milk available to most of us. Have a look here for information about how pasteurization and homogenization destroy the useful enzymes in milk, and make more of the fat absorb into the body than when consuming pure cream. Another link here, and for the damages done by so-called "ultra-pasteurized" milk, look here. It makes me want to either stop drinking milk, or befriend a dairy farmer.

Re:Milk

[Anonymous Coward]

Since your nick is 'Lord Kano' and not 'Lady Kano', I assume this is nothing like my own experience, but I share it just because..

I have been lactose intolerant since about puberty. Then, when I got pregnant, I was able to tolerate milk just fine. Now, when my youngest is almost 2, I'm lactose intolerant again.

The body has a remarkable ability to adapt to what it needs at the time..

Nitpick

[Dimensio]

Every living thing is evolving.

Living things don't evolve. Populations of living things either evolve, remain stagnant (which is very , very rare) or die out.

Re:Nitpick

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Populations of living things either evolve, remain stagnant (which is very , very rare) or die out.

Can you explain Chicago Cubs fans?

Re:Nitpick

[Darby]

Can you explain Chicago Cubs fans?

Out of those choices, it would be stagnation.
An alternative would be insanity if you define it as repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
Possibly, due to the large number of excellent Italian restaurants in Chicago, they're expecting FSM to swat a few out onto Waveland with his noodly appendage.

Future Generations

[Namronorman]

Can you imagine what our future generations will be like in say 10,000 years? Will we appear barbaric compared to them or will we be little to no different?

For all we know, those supposed little green men in the sky could actually be the humans of the future studying their history.

Re:Future Generations

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's gather the sum of human knowledge and put in a safe location for future generations to read, so they don't have to come back and probe us in the ass for information.

Now, wait a second...

[rasafras]

The world has changed a lot, and I mean a lot, in the past millenium (even 2-300 years). The selective pressures that were around previously, causing the stupid to die, are no longer present. In fact, there is very little selective pressure in today's society, where the number of offspring you have is rarely related to prosperity or the like. The death rate is so low that I can hardly imagine selective forces having a large effect on evolution. Random mutation still occurs, of course, and perhaps over the next millenium one society will evolve to be smarter and will destroy the other with superior technology, but I seriously doubt this. I'm one of those people that considers human evolution to be nearly frozen. Soon to be supplanted by willful manipulation, of course (ethics debate about this some other time).

Re:Now, wait a second...

[rbarreira]

Well, you took the words out of my mouth, and managed to explain it better than I could :)

Re:Now, wait a second...

[nwbvt]

Uhh, they are not claiming it has evolved over the past couple hundred years, but rather over the last 60,000 years. 60,000 years ago there were plenty of forces acting as natural selection on human beings.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[superpulpsicle]

For the human species to really evolve, the 4 major gene types (Caucasian, Asian, Aborigine, Afro-African) must mix as much as possible. The supremme being would technically have all the dominent genes out of each pool.

U.S probably has more interacial offsprings than any other country in the world in the past 300 years. It's no surprise that U.S remains one of the most innovative.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[rbarreira]

Yeah, but the subject line says "Researchers Say Human Brain is Still Evolving".

If he got confused, that may have been the reason :)

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Skewray]

I've always thought that we should allow drunk driving from midnight to 6 AM. This eliminates a part of the population no one will miss.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Nefarious Wheel]

It's very clear that we're selecting for the ability to produce money, read the correct magazines, and our inability to spot prophylactics in the wild. And drive cars with large integral flat surfaces.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you don't know about the racial makeup of Brazil...

Re:Now, wait a second...

[craXORjack]

In fact, there is very little selective pressure in today's society, where the number of offspring you have is rarely related to prosperity or the like.

While I agree that human engineering will likely eclipse natural selection in the near future, I have to say that from my observations, at least of modern industrialized society, that the number of offspring is still related to prosperity. However the relation is probably backward from what you were thinking. It seems that the poorest (and least educated so maybe that is the deciding factor) members of our society are the ones having children at the youngest ages and having more children over their lifetime.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no selective forces? Are you nuts? Even if we conquer all environmental pressures (which we are far from doing,) sexual selection will continue to drive change in the species.

The AC anti-bot text is "screwing". Slashcode might have achieved self-awareness. Is this why they're having to rewrite it, after all this time?

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Kaboom13]

There are many "dominant" (as in supress a recessive trait) genes that are not desirable. A complete mixing of races would actually probably be very bad, as it would mean less deviation in genes, which means greater susceptibility to disease. An example of this is the gene that causes Huntington's Disease. Also some recessive genes may be desirable. The can cary unique mutations that may give resilience to certain diseases that the more common dominant forms don't have. An example of this is the gene responsible for sickle cell, it also confers a resistance to Malaria (and is much more prevelant in the native people of areas with high rates of Malaria). Recessive doesn't neccesarily mean bad or weak, detrimental dominant genes are just more rare because carriers of the gene are more likely to die out, while detrimental reccessive genes can "hide" in perfectly healthy people. It's not that Im against interracial children or anything, it's just a fact that variety is an important factor in a species survival and continued evolution.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[at_slashdot]

"The death rate is so low that I can hardly imagine selective forces having a large effect on evolution."

Actually, just came to think about this: those who blow themself up they autoexclude from "natural" selection -- so probably in long term the stupid gene will disappear or be very rare in the population.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[king-manic]

The selective pressures that were around previously, causing the stupid to die, are no longer present.

that should read

"The selective pressures that were around previously, causing the stupid to die, are different and less fatal. "

There are still selective pressures, this explains why the global IQ is creeping upwards.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[king-manic]

For the human species to really evolve, the 4 major gene types (Caucasian, Asian, Aborigine, Afro-African) must mix as much as possible. The supremme being would technically have all the dominent genes out of each pool.

Dominant != good. Dominant means it tends to happen with hetrogenious parents. Dont' confuse the two. My Alpha thalasemia is dominant but in areas without malaria it's a bad trait.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[king-manic]

However the relation is probably backward from what you were thinking. It seems that the poorest (and least educated so maybe that is the deciding factor) members of our society are the ones having children at the youngest ages and having more children over their lifetime.

There are two strategies playing out in the world. One is have many kids, put few resources in them and hope at least 1 lives to reproduce. The other is to invest a lot of resources in a few and hoep they have kids too. Both work. They are however mutaully exclusive. High fecundity in one generation means nothing. If those 12 kids that trailer park momma has only 2 reproduce then she is less effective then a pair of middle class asians who had 3 and had all 3 have kids.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[xiaomonkey]

Typically.....the 'trailer park mamma' with 12 kids will probably have kids that reproduce early and often themselves.

Thus, we can sort of conclude what strategy will probably win in the end.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[king-manic]

Typically.....the 'trailer park mamma' with 12 kids will probably have kids that reproduce early and often themselves.

Thus, we can sort of conclude what strategy will probably win in the end.

You can't, just because they out number you doesn't mean yours is dead. They have to out compete you and make you stop having children.

Ant out reproduce us, are we welcoming our ant overlords yet?

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Jim_Callahan]

Crime-prone areas are cheaper: poor people live there as a result. Thus they have a tendency to die early and often as well. Rich people aren't murdered randomly in the street at age 14, they're murdered at 60 by their 20-year old trophy wife and her boyfriend, after they've already had kids with 4 other wives. Mix and match gender roles as you wish. Still adds up to an 'it could go either way' on a population front.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Look at them suffragettes! It takes a man to tame'm. In the long run only us 2-penised dudes will survive.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't, just because they out number you doesn't mean yours is dead. They have to out compete you and make you stop having children.

Well, no. You wouldn't have to stop having children. There's no reason that both groups wouldn't still exist. However, there would definitely be more 'trailer park people' than 'middle-class asians'.

Ultimately in this scenario, you'd see speciation, I believe. You'd have 'trailer park people' and 'middle-class asian' people with different and incompatible genes.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Kafir]

For the human species to really evolve, the 4 major gene types (Caucasian, Asian, Aborigine, Afro-African) must mix as much as possible.

First, your "four major gene types" are somewhat arbitrary; despite superficial appearances, there is more genetic diversity among Africans than among the rest of the world put together. A more reasonable "four types" might be !Kung, other sub-Saharan African, Aborigine, and "other" - but that would still be arbitrary, and, more important, irrelevant.

Mating between groups that were once genetically isolated from each other is actually the main reason (in my opinion) humanity is unlikely to undergo any significant evolution in the foreseeable future. Species don't generally "evolve into" other species; they branch and split. Apes didn't "evolve into people" en masse, for instance; humans are just one branch that split off and happened to survive. It's hard for those splits to happen when an entire large population is interbreeding, though.

For example, Europeans (and especially northern Europeans) have clearly been selected for pale skin, and apparently for long noses (to deal with cold air, perhaps) for quite a while - but if a pasty, long-nosed Englishman has children by a brown-skinned, short-nosed Polynesian, the evolutionary trend toward long-nosed whiteness has effectively been set back (in that case) by quite a few millennia - as has the separate adaptation to brownness that was selected for in the tropical Pacific. That's not a bad thing; if the Englishman is living in, say, Tahiti, his white skin isn't doing him any good anyway. The point is, a larger interbreeding population will tend to damp genetic change, while small, genetically isolated populations will be very prone to genetic change - see the Galapagos islands.

And finally:
The supremme being would technically have all the dominent genes out of each pool.

What the hell does that even mean? Are blue-eyed, blond-haired people genetically inferior, in your view? That's an interesting reversal of Nazism, but it's equally misguided.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no surprise that U.S remains one of the most innovative.

If Americans are so innovative, why can't you come up with a new stereotype to replace patting yourself on the back all the time?

Re:Now, wait a second...

[sznupi]

Evelution still happens, for sure. If it is somewhat distorted when it comes to genes...evolution of memes fluorish.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[wildsurf]

And drive cars with large integral flat surfaces.

***SPOILER ALERT!!***

wait, is that what you were talking about?

Re:Now, wait a second...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comments are mind blowingly wrong.

>>In fact, there is very little selective pressure in today's society, where the number of offspring you have is rarely related to prosperity or the like.

You refer to todays society as though humans have eveloved as a single society through time. You have totally ignored geography. Even today, indeed arguably more so than any other time, geography is a big factor in human evolution.
Americans look like evolving based with obesity as a major factor, though in what way we will have to wait and see. Go to many African nations and youll find food is an issue as well, but not in the same way. Maybe given time we will see 2 subspecies develop, one filling the sparse food niche the other the high tech/food surplus environment. The ability to produce offspring is likely to be under different pressures in each group. Indeed fertility rates are already beneath the rate needed for stable populations in the west, without immigration and increasing life span Americans will eventually die out as things stand, not so in less developed areas of the world, so maybe ability to have offspring is directly related to prosperity - just inversely.

>>The death rate is so low that I can hardly imagine selective forces having a large effect on evolution.

phew! talk about ignorance of the world around you.

Simple survival is still a challenge in many parts of the world. Child mortality whilst very low in comfy western societies, is a major issue in many areas of the world. That may eventually be a huge evolutionary factor, maybe the wests idea of keeping everyone alive will be an evolutionary dead end and those who undergo major selective pressure will become the next step on our tree.

>>I'm one of those people that considers human evolution to be nearly frozen

Look around you, check your facts. Americans are already losing their height advantage they had just 50 years ago to healthier europeans, but are surging ahead in the weight department. As noted the abilty to digest milk is fairly new, and only prevalent amongst those from certain ancestry. Immunity to aids is something that is more prevalent amongst certain european groups due to the evolutionary pressure of the black death and plague just a few hundred years ago. Many africans are resistant to malaria due to the prevalence of sickle cell anemia.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[tooth]

The death rate is so low that I can hardly imagine selective forces having a large effect on evolution

But it's still there... cancer, aids, fatty foods, suicide, polution, speeding around in metal boxes, all of it is still affecting who dies or who lives to breed.

And don't forget that it's not death that is the selective force, it's whether you breed or not. Sterile from too many chemicals in your diet or tioght jeans reducing your sperm count? Females that are too busy and leave it too late to have kids because they choose a career instead, or even too busy to find a breeding partner? Can't handle the pressure of modern life, with all the bills and mortage, why add to it with kids?

The selective forces are still there, they just don't have sharp teeth and come in the night anymore. Also don't forget that evolution != intelligence. That's 19th centry thinking (oh, the poor are breeding much more than us decent upper class). Evolution does not owe you a brain.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[hywel_ap_ieuan]

there is very little selective pressure in today's society....I'm one of those people that considers human evolution to be nearly frozen.

Relaxed selection speeds up evolution. Mutations that are mildly deleterious can stay in the gene pool and participate in the genetic mix'n'match. Eventually you get much more genetic variation than you do under heavy selection.

Further, evolution is sloooowwww by human standards. It goes in generations, lots of them. Nothing short of a catastrophic selection event - think Black Plague, only worse and worldwide - is going to have a significant influence on the relative frequency of specific genes in just a few generations. We're only a couple of hundred generations from the Late Bronze Age. So don't try to extrapolate from conditions in your own neighborhood during your lifetime to actual evolution of our species. It's silly.

Re:Now, wait a second...

[king-manic]

Well, no. You wouldn't have to stop having children. There's no reason that both groups wouldn't still exist. However, there would definitely be more 'trailer park people' than 'middle-class asians'.

Ultimately in this scenario, you'd see speciation, I believe. You'd have 'trailer park people' and 'middle-class asian' people with different and incompatible genes.

Perhaps one day, there is soem social barriers keepign the two groups from breeding. But one will not win. The "middle class asian" and the "trailer park trash" will cohabitat until there is a reaso for one ot die. Winning is about # it's about the binary states of "alive" and "exstinct".

How about evolving an iPod pouch

[Anonymous Coward]

IF evolution is so cracked up grand, where are the evolved responses to the digital age? extra appendages to work the mouse, or carry the ipod?

Re:How about evolving an iPod pouch

[Overzeetop]

If a random mutation resulting in an iPod pouch or "extra appendage" to work a mouse would make you more sexually attractive, then you might be on to somthing.

Personally, I'd prefer a third set of teeth.

Re:How about evolving an iPod pouch

[jholzer]

Damn, I thought no teeth in women was more sexually appealing.

I'm sure some women could think of an extra appendage on men more sexually appealing that wasn't for controlling a mouse as well.

Re:How about evolving an iPod pouch

[Anonymous Coward]

I beleive the perfect woman mentioned by most frat guys was short, flat headed, with no teeth. A flat head give you a place to put your beer so you don't have to hold it all the time.

Evidence of evolution in a generation's ability?

[Parallax Blue]

This may be unrelated but perhaps this continuing evolution shows itself in abilities that are picked up by each generation. For example, young adults are much more technologically savvy than older generations. Is this because they have been brought up in a technologically evolving world or is this the brain's evolution at work in being able to grasp new technological concepts? I am by no means an expert on any of this, but it seems this would be a classic case of Nature vs. Nurture.

Race and intelligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

This new data lends some weight to the genetic theory for explaining the differences in scores on mental aptitude tests between the various races. Various genes are responsible for differences in brain size and other mental characteristics, so it goes to reason that various isolated populations of humans that were undergoing evolution could have evolved differently.

Since East Asians score highest on mental aptitude tests on average, as the article suggests there are probably other genes that are responsible for that difference. Something that strengthens the math-center of the brain perhaps.

Anyway, very interesting stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

Re:Race and intelligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I generally don't trust Wikipedia when it comes to controversial topics because I've seen too many instances where editors and other users play their emotions into an article they don't agree with in the quest to make the article 'NPOV'.

i generally like reading directly from the researchers themselves..
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Race_Evolutio n_Behavior.pdf

Re:Race and intelligence?

[Max_Wells_SH]

Which isn't to suggest that researchers themselves don't play their own emotions and biases into their articles in the quest to fit their findings to their worldviews. I don't mean the article you linked is specifically a victim of this, or all researchers are especially guilty, but it's wise to be aware that no source is completely trustworthy for the "facts" (particularly on a perpetually hot topic like race and intelligence).

Re:Race and intelligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. I did not imply otherwise.

If one is interested in reading about a topic such as Race and Intelligence, its best to go straight to the researchers instead of leaving it up to the populist editors of Wikipedia to filter it out and rewrite it themselves.

Gene distribution

[Fox_1]

Dr. Lahn said there may be a dozen or so genes that affect the size of the brain, each making a small difference yet one that can be acted on by natural selection. "It's likely that different populations would have a different make-up of these genes, so it may all come out in the wash," he said. In other words, East Asians and Africans probably have other brain enhancing alleles, not yet discovered, that have spread to high frequency in their populations.

Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said the new results were interesting but that "it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function."

Basically this study shows that the 2 genes they studied are distributed with different frequencies in different populations, but occur more often in these populations now then 60,000 years ago. Anything else is just theory and speculation.

Re:Gene distribution

[Hannah E. Davis]

But... that's how evolution works. Microevolution anyway, and that's generally what we're talking about when we describe a change within a species. Ok, so technically, they just found a certain set of data, but based on the best theories we have (and the wealth of data that supports them), they can draw at least some conclusions based on their findings.... and I think that "we see changes in gene frequency, therefore (since microevolution, by definition, is a change in gene frequencies over time), the brain appears to be evolving" isn't much of a stretch.

Re:Gene distribution

[Michael Woodhams]

There are statistical tests for the "under selection" part. here's the first summary I found. It changes the frequencies of nearby neutral mutations which get to "ride the coat-tails" of the advantageous mutation.

The "related to brain size/function" is somewhat speculative, in that the gene could have additional unknown functions.

That the mutation makes us smarter is much more speculative. (Indeed, I don't think the paper's authors went this far.) It could, for example, make us 0.1% less smart, but reduce the brain's metabolic cost by 0.5%.

(Note: I've only read the linked article, not the scientific paper.)

Re:Gene distribution

[king-manic]

But... that's how evolution works. Microevolution anyway, and that's generally what we're talking about when we describe a change within a species. Ok, so technically, they just found a certain set of data, but based on the best theories we have (and the wealth of data that supports them), they can draw at least some conclusions based on their findings.... and I think that "we see changes in gene frequency, therefore (since microevolution, by definition, is a change in gene frequencies over time), the brain appears to be evolving" isn't much of a stretch.

this is what you are doing:

" Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, Chef's attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself!

        But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: Ladies and gentlemen this [pointing to a picture of Chewbacca] is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Why would a Wookiee--an eight foot tall Wookiee--want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

        But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

        Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

        And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

        If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. "

Micro evolution is a term creationists added to the arguement when it was plain they could not deny the facts. Anyone who uses those terms are not biologists, and are almost always americans. I tooks genetics for 2 and half year with 32 credits between me and a major in genetics, and the only time I ever heard about micro/macro evolution was on slashdot talking with creationists/confused commentors.

Re:Gene distribution

[Hannah E. Davis]

I was a biology major for a year and a half. All through highschool biology, as well as first and second year biology classes (two of the second year classes being Ecology and Genetics), I was taught about microevolution. I think it's important to differentiate between things happening on a small scale vs. things happening on a large scale... at least in part because the former is much easier to reverse than the latter. For example, there were the moths that almost completely changed colour in response to pollution and then changed back when the pollution was cleaned up (I'm sure you know the example I'm thinking of) because the required genes had not been eliminated from the population and no speciation had occurred. With macroevolution, however... well, I suppose it's possible that a chickadee may someday evolve back into a dinosaur, but I suspect that it would require an awful lot of mutation rather than a simple gene shift within the population.

Re:Gene distribution

[king-manic]

I was a biology major for a year and a half. All through highschool biology, as well as first and second year biology classes (two of the second year classes being Ecology and Genetics), I was taught about microevolution. I think it's important to differentiate between things happening on a small scale vs. things happening on a large scale... at least in part because the former is much easier to reverse than the latter. For example, there were the moths that almost completely changed colour in response to pollution and then changed back when the pollution was cleaned up (I'm sure you know the example I'm thinking of) because the required genes had not been eliminated from the population and no speciation had occurred. With macroevolution, however... well, I suppose it's possible that a chickadee may someday evolve back into a dinosaur, but I suspect that it would require an awful lot of mutation rather than a simple gene shift within the population.

Can I assume yoru from america? I didn't hear anything about it until I started posting on slashdot 3 years ago. There is no difference, the mechanism is the same. A chicadee will never evolve into a dinosaur, but given a long regimen of selection you could make it a very large carnivore.

Re:Gene distribution

[Fox_1]

and I think that "we see changes in gene frequency, therefore (since microevolution, by definition, is a change in gene frequencies over time), the brain appears to be evolving" isn't much of a stretch.

And I think that saying something isn't much of a stretch is funny when in the post you are responding too people with visible credentials (more visible and transparent then yours at least ) state :
Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said the new results were interesting but that "it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function."

Let's see if we can microevolve your point out of here.

Re:Gene distribution

[Hannah E. Davis]

I'm from Canada, and I notice that you bolded highschool but ignored my mention of 1 and a half years of biology at university. Yeah, ok, so first/second year classes don't teach anything particularly interesting, but it's still university-level biology, and at least one of my profs actually specialized in evolutionary biology.

It's not my fault that you were never taught about macro and microevolution :) It's part of the regular curriculum in the parts of Canada where I've lived... and I have NEVER had a teacher or prof mention creationism or intelligent design except in passing. We're just not taught that kind of fake science.

Also, having the same mechanism does NOT mean we can't differentiate between large and small-scale changes. That kind of classification makes our lives a lot easier.

Re:Gene distribution

[king-manic]

It's not my fault that you were never taught about macro and microevolution :) It's part of the regular curriculum in the parts of Canada where I've lived... and I have NEVER had a teacher or prof mention creationism or intelligent design except in passing. We're just not taught that kind of fake science.

Also, having the same mechanism does NOT mean we can't differentiate between large and small-scale changes. That kind of classification makes our lives a lot easier.

I live in alberta, the bible belt. I went to a catholic high school. Not one word about "micro evolution". I graduated 2 years ago. The idea is a red herring. It isn't a scientific idea.

Re:Gene distribution

[king-manic]

and I think that "we see changes in gene frequency, therefore (since microevolution, by definition, is a change in gene frequencies over time), the brain appears to be evolving" isn't much of a stretch.

And I think that saying something isn't much of a stretch is funny when in the post you are responding too people with visible credentials (more visible and transparent then yours at least ) state :
Another geneticist, David Goldstein of Duke University, said the new results were interesting but that "it is a real stretch to argue for example that microcephalin is under selection and that that selection must be related to brain size or cognitive function."

Let's see if we can microevolve your point out of here.

I understand what you are trying to say with the first quote I don't understand what you are trying to say after that?

Micro/macro evolution isn't a scintific idea. The theory of evolution does not distinguish between the two. The idea was added to the arguement by creationist/ID camp. This is a fact. There is no point in argueing it.

Re:Gene distribution

[Fox_1]

It's because I hit the 'reply to' at the wrong level of the tree. Consider my comment in context of a response to Hannah E. Davis, the same post you originally responded to. In the article and my top post it states "it's a real stretch" - the quote from David Goldstein. Then Hannah E. Davis responds with 'isn't much of a stretch' - it struck me that the Hannah E. Davis evaluation lacks credibility.

I actually agree with you that Evolution does not distinguish between the two (micro/macro). In fact the end result is the same so why even bother distinguishing unless trying to make loopholes in the theory.

sidenote my original GP post was trying to point out that other then seeing different forms of a gene appearing through history and population groups, no real conclusion could or should be drawn.

shame slashdot has to be a no edit enviroment so I couldn't fix that ambiguity that confused you (me replying to the wrong post).

Evolving or devolving?

[gamer4Life]

In this society, the people who have the most chance to procreate are the jocks, the Hollywood stars, musicians, etc.. while on the opposite spectrum we have the intelligent nerds.

Does this mean that we will evolve into beings that are better at hand-eye co-ordination, faking emotions, and playing music, while ignoring pure intellect?

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[Overzeetop]

No. The real procreation is going on at the shallowest ends of the gene pool. It is those on welfare and the generally lazy who are squeezing out pups like there's no tomorrow. Those of us with jobs and high-profile careers don't have the time properly devote to a gaggle of vermin, so we're less likely to produce them (that, and illigitimate kids can get expensive for rich folk once the lawyers get done, for poor people its just another welfare check or EIC credit).

They ought to tax you for every kid you have, and increase the fee with each child. Hell, I'd throw in free voluntary sterilization. It's not like we're going to run out of humans any time soon.

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[OwlofCreamCheese]

of course you think YOU are the high end of the gene pool and the pinical of human form

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[Overzeetop]

The deep end of the gene pool and posting on slashdot would appear to be mutually exclusive sets. Present company included. ;-)

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[KillShill]

"Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?"

well why don't you volunteer to reduce the stupid population by one and kill yourself.

thanks for your time,

sincerely Chuck D.

the only stupid people are the ones that point out everyone else is stupid. if you don't recognize yourself as stupid, you have a lot of evolving left to do.

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[Spy der Mann]

You're forgetting about symbiosis. This is also a tested-by-evolution phenomenon. (Remember evolution is about survival of the SPECIES, not of the INDIVIDUAL)

The geeks are NEEDED so the stupid can survive and get more comfortable. The stupid who reject geeks will tend (over time of course) to reproduce less, and those accepting geeks will flourish. Occasionally, one geek will try to take over the world *ahem* Bill *ahem*, but i hope that's an isolated phenomena.

Anyway, there are geeks whose parents are all "normal", so I think that somehow there's a recessive "geek" gene around the general population. It just pops up in the required quantity so that society (as a whole) can survive.

This makes me think that somehow there is a "classes" system, like ants. There are strong people, geek people, etc. But it's very subtle at this point. Maybe in 1,000,000 years ther will be a geek class with an amazing intelligence to rule over the rest of... humans? Who knows...

But I agree with you in something, society is degenerating fast... still, I don't think it's a genetic problem.

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[Vicsun]

The irony of your post is as delicious as about three and a half cookies.

Re:Evolving or devolving?

[KillShill]

that's only if i don't follow my own advice, for which you don't have any evidence to the contrary.

so actually, it isn't ironic at all.

First post

[MindPrison]

...oh crap! So much for the theory that our brains have evolved!

Re:First post

[rbarreira]

Well, I heard that the slashdot chicks always hang on to the guys who get first posts. So this might be a selective pressure in the future, don't joke about it :P

Obviously...

[tyman]

Of course our brains are evolving. Evolution doesn't just stop at the present. Eventually everyone writing on slashdot will be viewed as "monkeys" and religious fanatics of the future will proclaim that they did not evolve from these neanderthals.

Re:Obviously...

[John Hawks]

Eventually everyone writing on slashdot will be viewed as "monkeys" and religious fanatics of the future will proclaim that they did not evolve from these neanderthals.

My god! I've traveled to the future! How long have I been asleep?!

Re:Obviously...

[Overzeetop]

Eventually everyone writing on slashdot will be viewed as "monkeys" and religious fanatics of the future will proclaim that they did not evolve from these neanderthals.

I'm not usually one to point out grammar mistakes and such, but I believe you've messed up your tenses in that sentense. You must have meant to write in present, not future, tense.

(don't for get your smiley, or people on slashdot will think you're serious) ;-)

Depends on how much spaghetti you eat

[ScentCone]

Also, I understand that if you wear an eyepatch, that strengthens the optic nerve on one side of your brain. It is proof of His Noodly Will.

confer?

[Hinkey]

"... since previous instances of recent genetic change have come to light in genes that defend against disease and confer the ability to digest milk in adulthood." i dont get it

Human evolution has STOPPED!

[Spy Handler]

60,000 years ago, yes we were evolving because people with very low IQ, or diabetes, or asthma, etc. did not live long enough to breed. But today due to advanced medical technology and the security of a orderly society, virtually *everyone* lives and breeds regardless of how unfit they are to survive in the pre-civilization world -- passing down their genes for autism, diabetes, etc. etc.

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[John Hawks]

Sure, some of the things that used to kill a lot of people don't so much anymore. People even survive and have kids with CF today.

But selection requires only an incremental increase in reproduction. In a big population like ours, this increase can be as small as tenths or hundredths of a percent. This is so small that practically we will never measure it. Yet in a few thousand generations, this tiny reproductive effect will completely transform a population -- even a population of billions.

That's the problem with predicting the future -- what will be important then, we can't observe happening today. But there is plenty of reason to think that things are happening now. From my weblog:

Today, with 6 billion humans, every one-off mutation from the human consensus genome sequence occurs in dozens of people. Many multiple-off mutations occur in some people. In a larger population, selection is more potent, because genetic drift is weaker. This means that the advantageous variants of the next fifty millennia are already appearing in the world today, and may inevitably be selected. The global population is exploring the entire mutational space, many times over, and novel mutations are no longer likely to disappear so rapidly due to genetic drift. Any near variants that confer an advantage are already on the way to fixation. Many of these may lose their advantage once biomedical technology catches up to them. But others will be more subtle, more difficult to market in pharmaceutical form, and these will slowly, steadily increase.

So if you want to have an effect, get out there and reproduce! --John

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[RajivSLK]

Human evolution hasn't stopped. We are just selecting for different traits in modern times. The highest birthrate belongs to the third world poor and the Jerry Springer trailer trash. They shall inherit the earth.

In fact Darwin wrote about this very topic in an essay called The Decent of Man

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just part of a cycle.

It gets spoiled.
It almost dies.
Newer (older) conditions present themselves (representing what works).
Repeat.

(heh, one-hundred and fifty years to intelligence and 300 to 700 to stupidity)

Anyways, evolution does say thing get better. Just that life spanning generation responds to external conditions spanning social organization and environment

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[harry63]

I believe that this is absolutely BULLSHIT! Human evolution has not stopped. This advanced medical technology is part of evolution and survival of the fittest. There are numerous examples of this! The process of developing vaccines and antibiotics for diseases is part of being the fittest to survive. This is similar to the control of fire. Our ancestors were able to use the fire to tenderize meats so ethey were easier to digest.

If you would like more examples of this please let me know. I would be happy to share these with you.

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[Jim_Callahan]

We also distribute mood-altering drugs to unstable individuals with the handy side effect of killing their sex drive. Onward the selection process!

Re:Human evolution has STOPPED!

[Citizen of Earth]

virtually *everyone* lives and breeds regardless of how unfit they are to survive in the pre-civilization world -- passing down their genes for autism, diabetes, etc. etc.

Two things: not everyone breeds; poor people and careless people tend to breed more. Among richer and more deliberate people, people with significant reproductive problems are also able to breed. The latter is rather distressing, since we may ultimately lose the ability to breed without the aid of technology.

Question

[cached]

Excuse me for asking, but isn't this somewhat obvious? In certain regions, some alleles are much more advantages than in others (having exactly one sickle cell causing allele is extremely advantages in parts of Africa because it causes a very strong immunity to malaria), and it can be seen from the demographics in the article that certain regions tend to have more of a certain allele than others. True, sickle cell is for the entire body... but theres probably something similar that is specifically for the brain.

and...

[jshaped]

in other news,
scientists still know very very little about the brain.

Re:and...

[Nefarious Wheel]

"If the human brain were simple enough to understand, humans would be too simple to understand it." Kurt Goedel? Can't remember, brain's too small.

Theory or God??

[John Seminal]

given the popularity of pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design"

Now that is a loaded statement.

Evolution is nothing but a theory. Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening? How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

God made life. It is called a soul.

Re:Theory or God??

[CurlyG]

Yes, I think you *should* consult a real scientist, and ask them what "theory" means in a scentific context, and then get them to explain to you the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, as you clearly haven't the faintest idea what you're blathering about.

You're welcome.

Re:Theory or God??

[mdwh2]

You appear to misunderstand the following concepts: Theory, fact, law, big bang, statistics, life.

Theory - something backed up with evidence, and has made successful predictions.

Intelligent Design - not a theory, but instead conjecture; a made up idea.

Re:Theory or God??

[John Seminal]

Yes, I think you *should* consult a real scientist, and ask them what "theory" means in a scentific context, and then get them to explain to you the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, as you clearly haven't the faintest idea what you're blathering about.

A hypothesis is any idiots guess. A theory is the guess of a person with many letters behind their name. :p

For example, the bartender thinks the Patriots will beat the Raiders by 4 points. That is a hypothesis. The bookie says the Pats are getting 6 points, that is a theory.

Now a law, that is if Danny the Butcher talks with Tom Brady and has an understanding.

That my friend, is how the world works.

That is the education at The University of Hard Knocks. Byatch!

Re:Theory or God??

[Dimensio]

A theory is the guess of a person with many letters behind their name. :p

Wrong. If you don't understand the definition of "theory" in a scientific context, including the criteria that a given explanation must meet in order to be labelled a "theory", then you have no credibility when discussing science.

Re:Theory or God??

[Wavicle]

evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.

Theory and fact are not exclusive. Stating something is a theory and is not a fact implies that the theory is wrong. Scientific laws are just "convenience" wrappers for theories. The things we call "laws" are theories just the same. They are still subject to the same rigor as theory.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

And that is why you are NOT a science. Because you "know." You've moved from theory to statement of fact.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

The probability of the event cannot be determined because we lack understanding of the state space.

How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

The probability of getting N heads in a row is 1/(2^N). But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

And you've calculated the probability of this how?

God made life. It is called a soul.

That it is incorrect. Life was bestowed upon the earth when the Flying Spaghetti Monster extended His noodly appendage and brought forth a midget in full pirate regalia.

Re:Theory or God??

[JanneM]

given the popularity of pseudoscience like "Intelligent Design"

Now that is a loaded statement.

Yes it is.

It doesn't go nearly far enough.

"Pseudoscience" implies that its proponents, cranky or not, at least sincerely believes in it. That is too charitable for "intelligent design".

"intelligent design" is a meticulously planned, focus-group designed, carefully executed fraud.

It is created only to deceive. It's intended purpose is not to explain anything, but only to diminish the public credibility of any real scientific explanatory model of life or the origin of our world.

Re:Theory or God??

[John Seminal]

Wrong. If you don't understand the definition of "theory" in a scientific context, including the criteria that a given explanation must meet in order to be labelled a "theory", then you have no credibility when discussing science.

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.

You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life.

You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.

How do you explain miricles? How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa? How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice job. Not many people take pride in their trolling these days. Most just try to post something "shocking" or "obscene."

Re:Theory or God??

[Dimensio]

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.

And I say that if you're going to use the term "theory" to mean something other than what scientists mean and then claim that the theory of evolution is on shaky grounds because it is a "theory" by your definition then you're not arguing based upon facts, but upon dishonest semantics.

Which isn't surprising. I've observed that creationists are, in general, shameless liars. You're either one of them, or you're trolling. Your posts are more over the top than most creationists, but I do know that people have seriously expressed the insane and willfully ignorant sentiments that you preach in all seriousness, so it's hard to tell.

Re:Theory or God??

[agm]

Evolution is nothing but a theory. Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.

Like gravity, you mean?

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

We know no such thing. Some people assume this is the case but they lack any evidence.

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

That's a very 2nd grade way of describing it.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening? How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

Except that nature is not random. There are physical processes (like gravity and electromagnetism) that effects the way matter and energy behave. Processes like natural selection are not random either.

God made life. It is called a soul.

And the tooth fairy and santa claus exist too. Except that we stop believing in them as we realise what a crock they are. Some don't do the sam with these god myths though.

Re:Theory or God??

[Draveed]

A hypothesis is any idiots guess. A theory is the guess of a person with many letters behind their name.

And that is why you are stupid.

Re:Theory or God??

[Kizzle]

YOU'RE CRAZY!

Re:Theory or God??

[2short]

"So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit"

Cool. Because I define the word "bullshit" as simple shorthand for mean "You are absolutely correct, all creationists are idiots, me doubly so." Glad we agree.

To have a discussion of anything you must use commonly accepted conventions of naming. It's called language.

Re:Theory or God??

[msuarezalvarez]

Sigh.

Evolution is nothing but a theory. Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.

See, science does not produce anything but theories. Saying that evolution is just a theory does not make sense, because it cannot be anything else. It cannot be a fact because facts are of a completely different nature. It cannot be a scientific law because there are no such things (phrases like "the law of universal gravitation" are simply traditional ways of referring to the newtonian theory of gravitation).

Re:Theory or God??

[msuarezalvarez]

Argh. Wrong button... I left out the point of my post: so here it goes:

Please, O please: if you want to argue against evolution and for your favorite theory, by all means do so, but please, O please do not keep repeating this very sad mantra about evolution being "just a theory", because it not only detracts from the seriousness of your argument, makes you look ignorant about the matter under discussion, but, worse of all!, is already boring

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

>>God made life. It is called a soul. > >That it is incorrect. Life was bestowed upon the earth when the Flying Spaghetti Monster extended His noodly appendage and brought forth a midget in full pirate regalia. That is also incorrect. We are the armpit sweat of a dead giant. Hey, it was good enough for the Vikings. Besides, you FSM types are not interested in alternative theories. Teach the controversy, I say!

Re:Theory or God??

[Seumas]

God made life. It is called a soul.

So life is a soul? So cows aren't alive? Plants aren't alive? You're claiming that some unproven supernatural invisible entity has created an unproven invisible "entity"? That stands for science for you people?

And your argument is "the odds are against one thing happening, so if this one thing happens, it proves there's a god!". The odds are seriously stacked against winning the lottery, but winning it doesn't prove the existance of god.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

So you're not so much espousing any kind of scientific theory as just saying "intelligent design exists because god made us"?

Does your state not provide science text books to students or something? You really seem to be lacking a lot of basic knowledge and concepts. Your idea of science appears to be "I have a belief that is not, has not and can not be proven true - but if I apply a name to my belief, it becomes a scientific theory and gains sudden validity".

How is your belief that there's a god and he literally grabbed ten gazillion lumps of dirt and physically formed planets out of them like a two year old with playdough any more valid than someone who claims a giant spaghetti monster poofed into existence and created life, the universe and everything?!

People like you frustrate people with brains and common sense, because your "arguments" follow no logic and your only recourse is quoting shit out of a bible or saying "but I know it to be true!".

I can't state for a fact that there is no god or greater entity that created the universe, just like I can't state for a fact that there isn't life out there somewhere else in the universe on another planet. Likewise, you absolutely can not with certainty claim that there is a god, much less that he created the world and yadda yadda... and even much less that he wants specific commands followed, like not mixing various fibers in your wearable textiles.

So rather than being a stupid asshat, why not just be sensible and say "I have no consistant, tangible evidence of anything, so I reserve my judgement". Science is about discovery. Theology and religion is about making silly arguments to bolster your insistance on something that can absolutely not be proven.

"God made life. It's called a soul"... Holy shit, I'll be laughing at that one for years. That's your one great bit of proof. That and your belief that because things are "really complex", they couldn't possibly have occurred any other way than being directly made by the "hands of god". Because, of course, the entire point of evolution couldn't POSSIBLY be to do precisely that -- to pick and continue and advance things toward a more complex, adaptable, efficient nature -- right?

You're ignoring a million dominoes that fell, causing the final domino to fall over - and just claiming that the magical touch of santa clause tipped it over directly. Just silly.

Please, tell me you're a fifth grader who is still heavily influenced by his parents believe and that you're not an actual full-grown adult, presumably having received an actual education already?

Re:Theory or God??

[John Biggabooty]

God? Time Cube is the power above God! God is a falsehood of idiots professing singularity!

Supreme Power is in Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous Perpetual 4X4 =16 Corner Rotating Principle 4-Day Time Cube - Ineffable Truth.

Re:Theory or God??

[Seumas]

You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.

And you should just just return to your Oral Roberts university dorm and shoot yourself in the head before you reproduce. You have no grasp on anything other than as a perverted method of spreading your stupid jesus message.

Re:Theory or God??

[ScentCone]

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming?

Just don't expect to persuade anybody to see your point of view if you refuse to base your conversation on a common usage of specific scientific terms. If you refuse to actually crack open a dictionary and get up to speed on what the word "theory" means (hey, click here for a definition - it's free!), then the first job you'll face is to get people who do use a functional, consistent vocabulary to abandon it and use a new, made-up definition that suits your agenda.

You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you

Huh. Well, that's just not even slightly true on the face of it, so you're going to have to work on that from another angle.

How do you explain miricles?

Well, I don't know. Perhaps you mean "miracles." Luckily, though, I don't need to explain them, since they don't actually happen. On the other hand, there's the more common daily usage of that term, which equates roughly to "amazingly lucky" or "rare" or "long odds," etc. As in "It's a miracle that I won the lottery. Of course, it's simple probability, really."

How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa?

Well, she got up each morning and did things for people. And she was persuasive enough to get people to give her money so she could do more of it the next day. Are you saying that she did magic? That when she scrambled eggs for poor people, there were more plates served than could be accounted for by the eggs she bought? You don't need any magical thinking or mysticism to explain the day to day behavior of someone who decided that the only way to find meaning in her personal life was to be a servant. That was her call, and she worked the celebrity status she earned to raise more cash to do more of it. Miracle? No.

How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

A mistake. A prediction based on incomplete information. How do you explain it when a million people pray for Mother Theresa not to die, and she dies anyway? How do you explain it when someone survives a bus crash that kills a bunch of other people, and they say that Jesus was looking out for them? Did Jesus hate the other people on the bus? How do you explain it when churches get struck by lightning and burn down? How do you explain it when innocent little children are born into an agony of birth defects? Is God trying to teach those kids a lesson? Nice guy! For someone who is All Powerful and Loves His Children, he sure has a cruel sense of humor!

Or, how about this notion: it's all made up! It's a semi-comforting myth that's caught on with a lot of people for a variety of cultural reasons, and preys upon the intellectual cowardice that's built into most of us (mostly, the denial of death that we all hang onto, at least most of the time, because it would be hard to function day-to-day if we really stopped to think about how pointless the whole thing might seem, what with the fact that we're all going to die). Priests are just people in a uniform that shows they've made a career out of perpetuating the myth. It's actually pretty embarasssing - a lot of them are smart, and good communicators. They've just bought into the fantasy because it makes people temporarily feel good, and they've lost the will to make meaning in their lives, deferring instead to a canned religious product that's easier to serve up and sell.

Re:Theory or God??

[Wavicle]

Besides, you FSM types are not interested in alternative theories. Teach the controversy, I say!

There is no controversy. Pastafarianism is a fact, supported by the vast numbers of True Believers. A false creator could never hope to sway such a large audience. False religions, such as the cult of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, simply cannot stand against the light of the truth as shown to us by Him and His noodly appendage.

Re:Theory or God??

[rossifer]

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.

If you decide to make up your own definition for a word and then claim that scientists must also using your definition when they use the same word... I can think of a better place to put your "bullshit" label.

Theory already has a specific meaning when used by scientists. In this case, the various theories of evolution provide our current best explanations for the many-times-over observed fact of evolution (the fact that the frequency of alleles in a population changes over time).

You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life.

The first statement is patently false. Charitably, the Bible discusses the who and why of creation, but is woefully lacking any substantive discussion of how or when (which is what the theories and facts of evolution are all about). The second statement is irrelevant, since most graduate institutions don't explicitly attempt to improve how people live their lives (there is hope that by improving the quality/quantity of what people know, lives will improve, but it's implicit).

You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.

Not a month ago, another Christian was yelling at me for saying that Christianity still use fear-based arguments to spread the word (and Christian morality). He said that I was ignorant and that those type of people were just a part of the ugly history of Christianity. Where were you to defend my assertion then?

I always get a chuckle when I think that according to the worldview of people like you, all us godless heathens must be just wallowing in sin and misery because we don't have a man in the sky to tell us what's right and what's wrong. A really useful ethics will be a lot more useful than any "list of rules" morality like you're going to find in your books. Some Christians will understand and agree with what I'm saying, but I don't expect it to make any sense to you (you may also say they weren't really Christians anyway :)

How do you explain miricles?

Which miracles?

How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa?

As the personal effort of a well-intentioned but poorly informed woman. (perhaps not so poorly informed, since she came to the West for her own medical treatments rather than be treated in the hospitals that she created... hmmm...).

How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

In the real world, we should often discuss probabilities instead of certainties, but if, based on a doctor's experience, a patient has a vanishingly small chance of survival, he'll conclude the patient is a goner and move on to the next guy. But vanishingly small probabilities are still non-zero and some people will pull through by sheer force of will (a.k.a. placebo effect, which is not a brush-off, but a really important set of biophysical effects that your body can do to itself).

Have a great day!
Ross

Re:Theory or God??

[quantum bit]

Yes, but what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster created both the Time Cube's Simultaneous 4-Day Rotation, 4-corner Earth Sphere, and the idiots professing singularity.

His noodly appendage makes the 4-day rotation and the 1-day singularity both exist depending on who measures it... Simultaneously simultaneous!

/my head asplode

Re:Theory or God??

[quantum bit]

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening? How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

Sure, that's easy. It doesn't matter how improbable it is. Given infinite time, all probabilities approach 1. So you could say that it was inevitable that it would happen.

Of course that's an entirely pointless argument based on false assumptions -- namely that time can exist independently of space. You can't talk about "before" the big bang, because there was no before. After thinking about that for a while, it's real easy to go off into the woods of philosophy (why does the universe even exist, is it simply a figment of our imaginations, and so forth). We know that it did happen. The best science can do is look at the pieces and try to figure out what the watch may have looked like the instant after it was shattered.

Re:Theory or God??

[Max_Wells_SH]

I have some time to kill and an already low karma, so I'll chime in too.

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming?

I'm afraid so. This is one of the first things one should have learned about debate in high school: everyone has to agree on the terms, otherwise nothing will make any sense. So you do have to learn the conventions--they didn't become conventions for nothing, after all. In the scientific sense, a "theory" as we generally know it is called a "hypothesis". Facts, based on observation, lead to hypotheses, which are proposed and tested--that's basically the scientific method. A hypothesis that survives tests to falsify it can become a theory. (If anybody can correct any errors here, please do.)

A theory describes how something works, based on the facts. It is not a suggestion (layman's theory), but our explanation, and as someone else pointed out, it's the best it gets. Since Einstein showed that Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't always work (gravity acts differently around large masses), nobody has had the hubris to propose anymore "laws". Thus: gravity is a fact (you can verify its existence yourself if you wish, and observe it working with common household items); how it works is described in the Theory of Gravity. The Theory of Gravity is not a suggestion or view of how it might work, it's how we describe it to the best of our knowledge.

So it is with the Theory of Evolution. Evolution itself is a fact. There are mountains of evidence, and you can even observe it yourself--if we're recommending books, I think you would learn a lot from "The Beak of the Finch" by Jonathan Weiner, a short, highly readable and personable explanation of evolution, with numerous examples of its occurence everywhere and at all times (even your backyard). Now the Theory of Evolution explains how it works to the best of our knowledge, and accounting for all of the facts.

Intelligent Design is not, I'm afraid, a theory. In fact, it is not a theory in even the popular sense--or if it is, it is an amazingly weak one. Initially, ID's speculative explanation (there must be a designer) does not compare to evolution's compelling evidence that shows it's not inconceivable that everything could have evolved from a single source, given enough time (and 3.5 billion years is that). But on closer examination, that becomes irrelevant. ID cannot be argued in a scientific arena because it is anything but. At its core is a glaring lack of logic: even if there must be a designer, why the Christian God? There is a leap made there in ID that reveals the movememt for what it is: Creationism, wrapped in pseudo-scientific language. (This was addressed in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago in a three-day special.)

So we have two problems: the minor one of your refusal to argue with shared terminonology, using "dubious semantics", as someone said above; and the major one of not arguing against evolution with anything suitable. The Theory of Evolution is incredibly robust is at the core of modern biology. Intelligent Design is no kind of opposition, but deception and wishful thinking. Where facts are concerned, Intelligent Design is off-topic.

Well, you probably didn't even read this. That's fine. But maybe someone else did, and maybe I helped someone else out. Or maybe I'll get a mod point. I could use a mod point.

Re:Theory or God??

[Wavicle]

How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

Oh this straw man again... Okay, tell you what: have a priest bring a brain dead individual back to full function and I'll bite. There has never been a documented case of a brain dead person coming back to any mental function. So you get that done then come back.

If you really want to know, it goes something like this: Doctors generally predict based on their experience, and very simple statistics will show that their sample set is not very good. Further investigation will show that if a doctor expects a person with a particular condition to die, then those who do die will be remembered as reaffirming his hypothesis and those who do not will be forgotten as being non-events.

This has been researched many times. Doctors are skilled artisans of medicine and surgery but, with very rare exception, they do not practice science and subject all their diagnoses and prognoses to scientific rigor. They use personal experience and anecdote, and those are quite fallible.

Re:Theory or God??

[gardyloo]

a priest comes and the person wakes up?

    This sounds like a really bad fraternity joke.

Re:Theory or God??

[ozmanjusri]

A hypothesis is any idiots guess.

A hypothesis isn't a guess, it's a prediction. A theory is an explanation for all of the results of those predictions.

For example, our current topic is about human genes which have changed over time. The biologists who found those changes didn't accidentally stumble over those altered genes, they predicted that if evolution was occurring, the genes would have changed (a hypothesis, in other words). Then they checked to see if their prediction was correct, which it was (hypothesis confirmed). That knowledge is now part of the theory of evolution, along with the thousands of confirmed or rejected hypotheses over the past century and a half of biological science.

Conversely, some posters here have claimed that since stupidity is not a survival trait, creationists will die out in a few generations. That does not appear to be happening, so others will offer hypotheses why it is not happening, see if the new hypotheses match our observations, and add the results to the body of knowledge we call the evolutionary theory.

Interestingly, our explanations for the origin of life started with a creation hypothesis, but since it failed to match so much of our observations, it was added to the list of failed hypotheses more than a century ago. So intelligent design is still part of the theory of evolution, but it's a part we know doesn't work.

Re:Theory or God??

[king-manic]

So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.

You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life.

You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.

How do you explain miricles? How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa? How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

Thus spack the uninformed. If I was to walk into a bible study and say "well, thats nice but what the hell is a crucifix and who do we worship someone for dying on one?" It is tantamount to what your doing. In fact most Christians dont' exactly know why Jesus was important, they dont' realize that "lamb of the new covienent" has any other meanign then a neat religious catch phrase. Most people areguing about evolution don't know jack shit about it on either side. With one side having a slight edge on ignorance. You fail to grasp what evolution is, so your are against it. It is the mechanism where by god creates.

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> Evolution is nothing but a theory. Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory. It is not fact. It is not a scientific law.

Evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory; it explains the fact.

Laws are observed regularities of nature; the idea is orthogonal to the notion of a theory. And though I don't know of any laws of nature that are associated with evolution, I suspect a properly educated person could easily come up with one. For my part, I'm confident in saying that "imperfect self-duplicators will evolve" is a law of nature, even though no guru has stated it formally and given it a name or a number.

> The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

Hopefully you're trolling, because that's nonsense. (It's semantic nonsense even if you insert the missing "about" to fix the grammatical nonsense.)

> Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life. For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

What is the probability that a god would exist and do the exact same thing? Why do you think invoking "goddidit" makes something more probable? Wouldn't it actually be less probable, since you have added one more constraint that has to be satisfied?

> God made life. It is called a soul.

"Life" and "soul" aren't synonymous even among theists.

Your score:

• if trolling, 2/10
• if serious, 0/10

Thanks for playing.

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking retard. If there was a god, it wouldn't have cursed this planet with morons like you.

Please help the human race persist by committing suicide. NOW.

Re:Theory or God??

[noshellswill]

Hummm ... your comments have a "bio-sociologic" ring to them. Eau-contra're A HARD scientist obeys no RULES in his professional behavior, save that his mathematic predictions are born out by (his) experiment. A correct theory must predict correctly ... tho it may do other things, like "explain". There is no other scientific criteria for correct theory. It also follows, just barely, that no-prediction == no-science.
Can evolutionary discriptions make correct quantitative predictions in-the-large? Special pleading for a "young science" cannot be accepted.

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> Theory - something backed up with evidence, and has made successful predictions.

I would add that a theory is a model for some phenomenon. I think that's implicit in your "has made successful predictions" part, but it's probably useful to spell it out when trying to help clear up people's misunderstandings about what theories are.

> Intelligent Design - not a theory, but instead conjecture; a made up idea.

I wouldn't even call it a conjecture. It's apologetics, almost certainly conceived and propagated dishonestly.

It's possible that someone could offer "intelligent design" as a conjectural explanation for some poorly understood phenomenon, but that's not what these people are doing. They're trying to convince the courts that creationists have sound scientific reasons for their beliefs.

Re:Theory or God??

[TRIEventHorizon]

You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you

Huh. Well, that's just not even slightly true on the face of it, so you're going to have to work on that from another angle.

heh, it's true, why? because the writers of such things knew that there were just things you didn't do. If there wasn't a commandment against adultry, then things like AIDS may be more prominent (free sex). Without thou shall not murder (hebrew murr == murder, not 'kill') basically kept us from killing each other more than we already had. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's things made us make our own things, thou shall not steal kept us from stealing from each other.

These things made society what it is and made the idea of society sustainable. If people lived by these rules (for the most part, obvious exceptions, read: rapists, murderers, thiefs) then people could continue to live in groups without savagely killing each other.

I am a non-denomination christian and I do believe that Yahweh created us and created us with the ability to adapt to what the earth (which is also his creation) threw at us.

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> Nice job. Not many people take pride in their trolling these days. Most just try to post something "shocking" or "obscene."

His post is shocking, if he really believes it.

Of course, then it wouldn't be a troll, either.

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> > God made life. It is called a soul.

> So life is a soul? So cows aren't alive?

No, you've got it all wrong: cows are souls!

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> A hypothesis is any idiots guess. A theory is the guess of a person with many letters behind their name.

No, a hypothesis is a trial explanation, which stands or falls on the basis of what additional observations reveal. A theory is a hypothesis, our usually a big collection or related hypotheses, that models some important class of phenomena. We usually reserve the word for models that have withstood the test of time, but not always (e.g., string theory).

IMO it would be better if we had a different term for the latter category, so we could distinguish between well supported theories (relativity, QM, evolution) and conjectural theoretical systems (string theory, etc.).

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming? I say bullshit.

You can use made-up words if you wish, but if you want anyone to know what you're talking about you need to learn the terminology.

Besides, what good does it do you to criticize the "theory of evolution" if "theory of evolution" doesn't mean what scientists say? What, precisely, would you be criticizing? And why would anyone care?

> You will learn more about evolution in the Bible than any PH.D. granting institution can teach you. And you will live a better life. You should read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" by Edwards.

And you should listen to the idiocies of John Ashcroft and Pat Robertson.

> How do you explain miricles?

Define 'miracle', and show us one to try our hand at explaining.

> How do you explain the works of Mother Theresa?

Not much beyond con artistry, if you care to read up on it.

> How do you explain it when modern medicine says a person will die, that there is nothing else that can be done, but a priest comes and the person wakes up?

Luck.

How do you explain it when a priest comes and the person dies anyway? And what distinguishes your explanation from luck?

Re:Theory or God??

[KnightTristan]

Haha, great. Image those two entries spoken by the Hitchiker's guide's voice.

Re:Theory or God??

[lotus_out_law]

I know I am going completely off-topic here..
But why is parent given troll ?
Just because we dont believe in his theories, we shouldnt be modding him down..

I also am completely against the whole idea postulated by the parent.. But pushing the idea down is exactly opposite of what any discussion should be.

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have the choice whether or not to believe his theories, because he presents his belief as *fact* not *theory*.

Thats why he was modded troll.

Re:Theory or God??

[Citizen of Earth]

How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

The probability of getting N heads in a row is 1/(2^N). But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

It's relevant in that it demonstrates the ignorance of the parent. Even if the probability is vanishingly small, the universe is insanely big, so even vanishingly small probabilities will produce some number of successful cases.

We happen to be familiar with one such successful case, but because were are stuck here with only the ability to observe ourselves, we are unfamiliar with the quadrillions of unsuccessful cases scattered about the universe. There are no people there complaining about their own lack of existence.

Re:Theory or God??

[koekepeer]

interesting argumentation. if many people think something is true, it cannot be wrong. following this reasoning, one could argue that adolf hitler was some kind of god (at least for a while he was).

Re:Theory or God??

[FidelCatsro]

"So you say that for anyone to have a discussion of evolution they must use your conventions of naming?"

if you shanty use rubber naming conventions , the boat point makes little cobra.
this is bong we have mulling of words , so shark makes harpy

or to translate

if you wish to make a point about science , please use the proper terminology and correct words .if you start to misuse or make up words then things get rather silly.
It is fine to argue against evolution , but be sure to do from a position of understanding , not misconceptions due to the wording (your understanding of them at least).
Chances are you won't find a good counter theory to evolution(I very much doubt you have a degree in any school of biology , I stand corrected if you do) , but at least it will make sense

Re:Theory or God??

[zpok]

[quote]
"intelligent design" is a meticulously planned, focus-group designed, carefully executed fraud.

It is created only to deceive. It's intended purpose is not to explain anything, but only to diminish the public credibility of any real scientific explanatory model of life or the origin of our world.
[/quote]

OK, broadly the same could be said about religion in general and most political statements.

But that doesn't mean people don't BELIEVE it.

My sister just can't believe we're somehow sharing traits with apes, while to me that's maybe our most redeeming quality ;-)

Re:Theory or God??

[FidelCatsro]

You are correct , he shouldn't be modded troll . he should be marked as flamebait.
If he does believe it , then stating it here in such a way as to attempt to ridicule evolution is bound to cause an argument here.

  Even people that believe in Creationism as a science must know that

Re:Theory or God??

[CmdrGravy]

Look at his recent posting history. He is a troll.

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

The cool thing [about] Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

How do "we" know that? Oh yes, through the auspices of a poorly translated book that was admittedly written by men. Well that settles it.

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

1. Physics/evolution: The universe spontaneously (in our current understanding) pops into being, with quarks agglomerating into fundamental particles agglomerating into atoms agglomerating into molecules agglomerating into untold numbers of astronomical structures, with an incredibly tiny fraction experiencing conditions that (theoretically) cause molecules to agglomerate into simple life forms that develop into more complex life, etc.

2. Creationism/ID: An omnipotent and omniscient god (according to the Bible) or unspecified smarter-than-us-type (according to ID) pops into being (strangely, both positions neglect this detail) and causes the universe to pop into being (see point 1 above if you Catholic, peruse the begats if you're a fundamentalist). If you claim that ID does not require a "God", refer back to point 1 but do a lot of hand waving so that nobody realizes that you have failed to postulate an origin to the universe.

The point: Excuse me, but I'm terribly confused -- Which is the more unlikely event?

God made life. It is called a soul.

If that is the case, then what made God? What is a soul? Where is the reproducible physical evidence that souls exist? Why has the church (pick your favorite) failed to fund the superconducting super soul collider to investigate and prove the existence of the mysterious Higgs soulson?

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yee-argh, Jim lad. Let's us be tackling that old global warming by dressing up as pirates before splicing the mainbrace and giving the cap'n's favourite cabin-boy a lick of the cat!

Yee-argh I say again, and I might venture, a yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum, me old shipmates!

Re:Theory or God??

[BoneFlower]

Evolution nothing but a theory?

Well, thats an accurate statement.

But it doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is more, or even equally, credible. There is solid evidence for evolution. While very little of it has been directly observed, there is a great deal of fossil remnants of various life forms that shows development over time, giving a strong, and direct suggestion that they evolved.

There is, well, no evedentiary support for Intelligent Design apart from the fact that things exist in the first place. People who say things are too complex- I can see their point. You aren't going to get a few chemicals to mix and out pops Homo Sapiens. But they forget- this took place over billions of years. Things that are far too complex to happen in an observable time frame can be very likely to occur over a longer time frame. I've heard this said of New York City, its a similar(though not identical) concept "Million to one chances happen 11 times a day in a city of 11 million". Basically, if you have a large enough sample size, incredibly unlikely things will inevitably occur. Of course, if you go with a purely literal interpretation of the Bible, there wouldn't be time for this. While I'll grant that as a legitimate belief to hold, cloaking it as a science is just total bullshit.

Note that this does not rule out God having a role, if you accept large parts of the Bible as allegorical. Which you really should anyways. The parables of Jesus were allegorical after all, that much is crystal clear even from a literal reading of the Bible. Considering that, where the Son of God used allegory to explain spiritual truths, why is it so out of line to think that the previous Prophets, and God the Father would not have used allegory? Presumably the people in Jesus time would be even *more* likely to understand a more direct way of stating things, so

Furthermore, look over the Genesis story again. Note how each step incrementally brought the world to the current stage where humans were dominant. Hmmmm... That sounds somewhat like evolution to me. More allegory? I think so. Also keep in mind that the Sun wasn't created until the second "day"- how could these days be meant literally, when the thing that defines a day didn't even exist when they were first counted as such?

Intelligent Design as it is pushed in the media is only supportable by a literal reading of Genesis, and the precedent in other sections(supposedly more important sections such as the Gospels), and simple common sense, suggest that it was meant as allegory. Allegory does *not* diminish the spiritual truths behind it. How many times have you found great wisdom in a science fiction story, or even a bit of wisdom humorously expressed in The Far Side? Does the truth of what you found change because the source was not literally factual? NO.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

Actually, hypotheses and theories are quite disconnected, as are theories and laws.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction. A theory is a hypothesis-generating model. A law is a mathematical description.

For example:

Hypothesis: If I throw an object X with a force of Y at a vector of Z, it will land at point Q.

Theory: Gravity is caused by the warping of space by mass

Law: F=G*(m1*m2/r^2)

Note that even with dramatic changes to the _theory_ of gravity, the Law is relatively stable -- it is simply a mathematical description.

Thus, creationists and evolutionists are both wrong when one says "evolution is just a theory, it's basically a guess" and the other says "evolution is a proven fact, just like the 'theory of gravity'". Theories are merely hypothesis-producing mechanisms, and are judged by their usefulness of producing testable hypotheses.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"I wouldn't even call it a conjecture. It's apologetics, almost certainly conceived and propagated dishonestly."

Who in the ID community is being dishonest?

"It's possible that someone could offer "intelligent design" as a conjectural explanation for some poorly understood phenomenon"

Actually, most people offer up "intelligent design" for well-understood phenomena. Would you say that the works of Mozart are not intelligently designed? Or perhaps that the Apache server was not intelligently designed? ID simply says that we can analyze design mathematically, and use the results of that to determine if a given physical system is likely the result of an intelligent agent. In fact, this process is already implicit in Archaeology and in SETI. It's just that biologists don't like it being applied to their neck of the woods.

"They're trying to convince the courts that creationists have sound scientific reasons for their beliefs."

This is incorrect. ID does not want either ID or creationism taught in science classes. In fact, most creationist organizations don't want creationism as a mandatory topic. And all groups I am aware of agree that evolution should be fully taught to students.

Re:Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"God made life. It is called a soul.

And the tooth fairy and santa claus exist too. Except that we stop believing in them as we realise what a crock they are. Some don't do the sam with these god myths though."

The difference is that material processes do not even have the potential to explain life and consciousness as we experience it. The best that neuroscience has ever been able to do is discover corrolaries of consciousness. But the gap between the event of consciousness and it having brain correlations is huge.

No amount of mechanical processes cause a machine to snap from being without consciousness to being with consciousness. Consciousness and subjectivity are simply outside the realm of material processes, and no amount of yammering from the metaphysically confused (like Dawkins) changes that fact.

In addition, if material processes could explain all of the universe, it would completely undermine reason. Let's say that person A is a lifelong republican. And person A then goes and says, "George Bush is a great guy". Most democrats would say that person A is not speaking from reason, but says that only because he is a Republican. What they are saying is that he is influenced by outside events, which prevent him from being rational. However, in the materialist view, ALL events are outside, deterministic or chance, events. Therefore, all reason, including the reasoning that says that all things are the result of material processes, is not reasonable but instead imposed on the subject from the outside.

Re:Theory or God??

[ScentCone]

These things made society what it is and made the idea of society sustainable

Implying that social contracts (such as: "I won't steal your stuff - or wife - if you don't steal mine" etc) are reinforced by various religious documents and tenets is one thing. Suggesting that a collection of idealized histories and fables that reinforce those social concepts is somehow informing you about evolution (see the previous post), is still incorrect. Developing a viable culture is not the same as evolving the meat computer that's first needed as a platform. All sorts of animals have simplified cultures, and we've got a particularly good brain for that sort of thing. The Bible is not a resource for people who want to understand the evolutionary mechanisms that support speciation, adaptation of populations, and the like. Rather, things like the Noah myth fly completely in the face of any rational take on natural history, and those that take it literally are willingly stepping away from anything like a rational view of the world around them. From that deliberate embrace of an irrational world view comes just about everything that's been wrong with human affairs for the last several thousand years. The early folks have an excuse: no practical science to show them how things actually work. There's no excuse today for believing that Santa really does bring presents, or that God (again, with the sense of humor!) plants fake dinosaur bones just to see how far he can push the true believers into not believing their own eyes.

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

This is incorrect. ID does not want either ID or creationism taught in science classes.

The whole purpose of creatonism (and its newest incarnation ID) is to get their god concept regarded as an equivalent or even superior scientific theory. That is why almost 100% of all Creationists and ID proponents are religious and almost all of them happen to be Christians. There is not a single scientific field, including theology, with such a dominance of one specific religion.

Re:Theory or God??

[M. Gordian]

RAmen.

Re:Theory or God??

[moz25]

If you look at it, religion is little more than a cult gone out of control. Christianity is centered around (and named after) a single charismatic and egomaniac leader who passed away 2000 years ago. No matter how watered down it is, it's still a personality-cult at its core.

I find that scary... but maybe I don't have the right genes to "get" this stuff.

Re:Theory or God??

[zpok]

The scary part is how important that belief is. Hell, I'll believe anything on a good day, but for instance training young people not to believe in human accomplishments because it doesn't conform with religious "fact", that's scary. And perverse...

Re: Theory or God??

[zpok]

So you're not a bible belt christian, but a hindu?
Very confusing, keeping up with religious people.

Re: Theory or God??

[Scrameustache]

Who in the ID community is being dishonest?

Without naming names:
The people involved in attempting to put stickers on science books discrediting evolution as "just a theory". That was sneaky, underhanded, dishonest.

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

So who made God?

Creationists argue that something as complex as a human being could not possibly be the result of anything but intelligent design. If that is the case, then it would follow that the designer (who is presumably at least as complex as a human being) also could not possibly be the result of anything but intelligent design. And it's turtles all the way down...

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"That was sneaky"

Did they do it in secret? If not, how is it sneaky?

"underhanded"

In what way? I think it's underhanded for biologists to make metaphysical pronouncements as if they were observable facts.

"dishonest"

Again, in what way? Biology textbooks often present the unobserved past on equal footing with observable, experimental science. THAT is pushing on dishonest.

Perhaps you don't understand what the issue is that is being discussed. Here is a good introduction to it:

The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism

Re:Theory or God??

[Valiss]

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

And again....

I hate crap like that. Scientific America had a great article a while back that explains this just as well as I ever could. Here, I found a copy of the article (Scientific America wants you to reg to read the original on their site):

"1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth."

PDF version: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbook disclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

Original: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FE C-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

"'For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?'

The probability of the event cannot be determined because we lack understanding of the state space."

I think we all know the probability of our existence is 1.

Re: Theory or God??

[Scrameustache]

They used political power to attempt to discredit the content of a science book because it does not correspond to their religious beliefs. To do this, they disguised their religious agenda under a veil of pseudoscience because they aren't allowed to overtly censor scientific teaching based on religious grounds.

It is sneaky because they snuck their faith in a science class through the ballot box.

It is dishonest because they hid their religious motivations.

It is underhanded because it was worded so as to evade notice of their religious motivations.

"Intelligent Design" is a religious movement using scientific jargon to discredit actual science. That is not honest.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"They used political power to attempt to discredit the content of a science book because it does not correspond to their religious beliefs."

They were not discreditting the book, but rather noting that the metaphysical assumptions were unproven, which is true.

"To do this, they disguised their religious agenda under a veil of pseudoscience because they aren't allowed to overtly censor scientific teaching based on religious grounds."

Except that evolution is done on religious grounds, namely naturalism. This is the problem - evolution presents the results of secular philosophy as an observable fact, when it is not.

"It is sneaky because they snuck their faith in a science class through the ballot box."

The ballot box is precisely the place where a publicly-funded, publicly-run course should be handled. We opted for a democracy rather than rule by philosophers. This is part of it.

"It is dishonest because they hid their religious motivations."

You mean the biologists? I agree completely. They should not pretend that materialism is an observable fact of nature and should admit its philosophical and theological underpinnings.

"It is underhanded because it was worded so as to evade notice of their religious motivations."

Oh, you're talking about the people who put in the sticker. You are correct that people involved with religion tend to understand philosophical issues better than others, but I don't think its necessary that they explicitly mention their worldview every time. Should we have made Francis Crick mention the fact that the whole reason he was in biology was to discredit the Christian faith every time he spoke? What about Dawkins, same there? Or are you just prejudiced against Christians? If we always mention religious motivations, shouldn't we always tell people when we talk about genetics why Mendel thought it was evidence against evolution, and his religious motivations for developing his theory?

""Intelligent Design" is a religious movement using scientific jargon to discredit actual science. That is not honest."

Actually, Intelligent Design is two things:

1) a mathematical description of design, used to detect design in objects and systems

2) a rejection of materialist philosophy as the sole operating mode of science

Re:Theory or God??

[Minna Kirai]

even if there must be a designer, why the Christian God? There is a leap made there in ID that reveals the movememt for what it is: Creationism, wrapped in pseudo-scientific language.

As the nytimes article showed, professional ID proponents are actually careful never to make that leap when going about their business. You can look backwards at their prior espoused beliefs, but they are nonspecific about the Designer's identity in their official propaganda.

But maybe someone else did

Ha! Nobody else read it, not even me.

Or maybe I'll get a mod point. I could use a mod point.

Ha! No karma for you!

Re: Theory or God??

[Scrameustache]

Like most others defending "Intelligent Design", you too are quite dishonest.

e.g. Dishonestly putting words in my mouth: You are correct that people involved with religion tend to understand philosophical issues better than others

Here are MY words: People involved DO NOT tend to understand philosophical issues better than others. Quite the contrary.
They tend to obsess over one philosophy, irrationally clinging to it no matter what, without understanding it.

And, honestly, I can't stop you from polluting science threads with your "I know you are, but what I am" attemps at equating science and religion, but neither can you fool me in believing that you are honest in your discourse. So, STFU&GBTW.

Re:Theory or God??

[Max_Wells_SH]

As the nytimes article showed, professional ID proponents are actually careful never to make that leap when going about their business. You can look backwards at their prior espoused beliefs, but they are nonspecific about the Designer's identity in their official propaganda.

Still, it's implicit, as the official ID proponents do have a particular agenda, right? I think so.

Ha! No karma for you!

I know! One OT and one Redundant, and now I'm stuck down here with the plebs. Ah well.

Re:Theory or God??

[Dimensio]

Can evolutionary discriptions make correct quantitative predictions in-the-large?

Yes, and it has done this.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"Like most others defending "Intelligent Design", you too are quite dishonest."

Like most who are calling creationists and ID'ers dishonest, the fact is you just disagree but don't like people on the other side, and so resort to calling names. There has been nothing dishonest -- only things that you disagree with. Yet for some reason you can't simply disagree, you have to call them liars.

"e.g. Dishonestly putting words in my mouth:"

Oh please -- you can't handle a little irony? Play on words? You have to resort to name-calling?

"And, honestly, I can't stop you from polluting science threads with your "I know you are, but what I am" attemps at equating science and religion"

I'm not equating science and religion. I'm differentiating observational science from philosophical claims made in the name of science. The latter do occur regularly, both in science classes and even in science in the field. If materialism is simply an assumption for experimental purposes, science must acknowledge that its results do not hold when non-material causes are at play (which they do not). If they do not acknowledge this, then they are indeed engaging in philosophical and theological statements. That is simply a fact.

Re: Theory or God??

[Black Parrot]

> Actually, most people offer up "intelligent design" for well-understood phenomena. Would you say that the works of Mozart are not intelligently designed? Or perhaps that the Apache server was not intelligently designed? ID simply says that we can analyze design mathematically, and use the results of that to determine if a given physical system is likely the result of an intelligent agent. In fact, this process is already implicit in Archaeology and in SETI. It's just that biologists don't like it being applied to their neck of the woods.

What biologists don't like is the dishonest pretense of detecting intelligent design in biological organisms.

BTW, do you say Mozart and Apache are examples of intelligent design because you applied Dembski's "explanatory filter" to them, or because you know people created that stuff? The analogy with the Discovery Institute's pretense of detecting design in biology is entirely spurious.

Also, why aren't these nifty ID detection methods ever used in archaeology and SETI?

> ID does not want either ID or creationism taught in science classes.

After failing in a couple of high profile school board farces, the Discovery Institute has now retrenched to a "teach the controversy" position. And they're completely disowning the Dover case because the fools on the Dover school board ignored the "don't say 'God'" memo, completely blowing ID's cover.

The charade has flopped. Dembski's pretence of being the next Einstein failed; he's is now a Professor of Theology. ID has become nothing more than a buzz word among creationists, to the point that they've relabeled all their old stupid anti-evolution arguments as "ID" without regard to content.

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

I'm not equating science and religion.

No, you are trying to masquerade religion as science. The problem with creationists is that they are heavily biased towards one specific religion. Whenever someone defends creationism, you can do a 100 to 1 bet than they'll answer "yes" when asked if they happen to be Christian. Which real scientific field has this level of bias?

Naturalism is not a religion or a foundation for religious thinking. A personality cult centered around (and named after) an egomaniac is a foundation for a religion. Please don't equate your comfortable myth with healthy skepticism.

Re:Theory or God??

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think we all know the probability of our existence is 1."

Yes, but what's the probability of life arising on a similar world? That we can't know.

Re:Theory or God??

[moz25]

Well, for many people it is probably beneficial to be part of such a cult. It's always possible for people to do even crazier things... and the concept of an invisible Big Brother may be just what they need to stay in check. It is rather amusing when some claim that people without the same invisible friend have no reason to be caring, ethical and so on... with that, they explain exactly what kind of ethics they have at their core.

Interestingly, though... there is not much outside of a narrow range of activities that separates a god-believer and an atheist. They are smart enough to rely on exactly the same things an atheist would, like science, hospitals, police, etc. That's evolution at work, I guess. It's my speculation that at least 20% of those who claim to be religious do it for the social benefits.

Re:Theory or God??

[zpok]

You're right I think. I've also met very dedicated good people among believers and non-believers alike.

But somehow, grownups doing their thing in the name of santa clause, it seems irresponsible ;-) Ah well, it's the deed that counts.

I'd like to point out though that a subset of believers will refuse modern medical attention or ignore rules of society because they clash with their belief system.

But apart from mormons I don't know of anybody shunning modern comforts, which says something I guess, of our real priorities ;-)

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"No, you are trying to masquerade religion as science."

Incorrect. I'm separating out assumptions from observations. It is true that Christians bring a different set of assumptions to the table. It is also true that secularists bring a specific set of assumptions. It is not true that the secular assumptions are somehow "more scientific" than the Christian ones.

"Whenever someone defends creationism, you can do a 100 to 1 bet than they'll answer "yes" when asked if they happen to be Christian"

You can actually do the same for evolution, simply because Christianity is the dominant religion in america, for both evolutionists and creationists.

"Naturalism is not a religion or a foundation for religious thinking."

Yes, it is. Secular humanism (which is simply a form of naturalism) considers itself a religion without a deity.

"Please don't equate your comfortable myth with healthy skepticism"

Of course "skepticism" gets applied to other people's beliefs, not to secularism or naturalism. It's easy to name-call "comfortable" versus "skeptical", but it's really a baseless charge, considering the fact that Christianity requires your very life, while "skepticism" requires nothing at all except what you want it to require.

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

It is also true that secularists bring a specific set of assumptions. It is not true that the secular assumptions are somehow "more scientific" than the Christian ones.

I don't see it as a secular vs. religious issue: the lack of a religious basis of a claim still says little about its validity. However, the Scientific Method that is at the core of science demands claims to be independently verifiable and falsifiable. Most Christian claims do not meet that criterion and thus do not qualify as scientific. You might argue that science is religious too somehow, but you cannot argue that religion is scientific.

We can see that naturalism gives us the most practical tools and predictive powers. They might have assumptions at their basis, but those assumptions have been proven highly practical again and again. Supernatural claims are almost always circular and can only predict after the fact. Thus even if they had any validity to begin with, they'd still be useless for anything practical.

You can actually do the same for evolution, simply because Christianity is the dominant religion in america, for both evolutionists and creationists.

It's good that you agree that support of Darwin's theory of evolution is not based on what you call "secular assumptions". However, it is impossible to claim that any scientific field has near-100% dominance of Christians. The dictionary definition of Creationism links it strongly to believing in the Genesis myth.

Secular humanism...

Even if we assume what you say about secular humanism is true, then it's still a pointless argument because I brought up naturalism and not secular humanism.

Of course "skepticism" gets applied to other people's beliefs, not to secularism or naturalism.

The difference is that naturalism gives claims we can verify for ourselves. Supernaturalism gives claims we can only verify after we're dead. It's rather natural to be more skeptical of the latter.

while "skepticism" requires nothing at all except what you want it to require.

That same claim goes for about everything else, so it's pretty pointless.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"However, the Scientific Method that is at the core of science demands claims to be independently verifiable and falsifiable. Most Christian claims do not meet that criterion and thus do not qualify as scientific."

I think you are confusing Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism is a philosophical presupposition, much like the secular humanism, or the philosophical impetus of the Big Bang. As Hawking and Ellis say, you simply cannot do cosmology without mixing in philosophy.

Intelligent Design is simply identifying the characteristics of intelligent action. It is trying to determine a mathematical methodology to apply in order to do this. ID explicitly separates scientific claims of design from religious claims of who the designer is, or whether or not the designer is natural or supernatural.

"You might argue that science is religious too somehow, but you cannot argue that religion is scientific."

I never claimed the latter, though you can do scientific research on certain claims of faith, or using them as a starting point. The former is true of anyone who does cosmology at all. What is happening now is that although those who do cosmology readily admit that they do have a philosophic bias, they reject the philosophic biases of others who start from different places.

Now, perhaps cosmology should be excluded from science entirely -- I'm certainly open to that. But creationism is just as scientific (or unscientific) as any other cosmology, as neither are experimental or observable exercises (which are the characteristics of science). Intelligent Design is much more of a science than either one, because it is not cosmological -- it is simply a measurement.

You might be interested in a summary of Intelligent Design I wrote awhile back:

http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/03/setting-facts-st raight-on-intelligent.html

"We can see that naturalism gives us the most practical tools and predictive powers."

Incorrect. Experimentation and observation give us those things. Naturalism is the abandonment of reason, and is akin to admitting effects without a cause.

"Supernatural claims are almost always circular and can only predict after the fact"

Three things: (1) Intelligent Design differs from Creationism in that ID does not suppose that anything supernatural has occurred. It simply says that intelligence is a causitive force that is different from, but limitted by, natural law. And thus, reducing everything to material causes leaves out a great amount of what is occurring even in every day life. When I write a computer program, I am limitted to what can be done with natural law, but nonetheless creativity and intelligence act as a causitive force of their own to produce something novel. 2) In the case of historical reconstruction (i.e. cosmology), the point isn't practicality anyway. The point is to determine what happened. That is the question, isn't it? What happened. What practical value do we get from Hawking telling us that we formed from a singularity? Can we recreate the singularity? No. So, cosmology itself is different from observational/experimental science in this regard as a whole subject. 3) However, you are still missing the ultimate practical reason -- if we know who we are, how we were made, and why we were made, it then tells us what and how we should then live. Does God exist? Does He care about us? How does He want us to live? Do His wishes matter, or is God merely an illusion? These questions have more practical import than all that science has given us in the last 1,000 years. To answer them wrong because we have assumed the answer before starting is simply ludicrous.

"It's good that you agree that support of Darwin's theory of evolution is not based on what you call "secular assumptions""

Actually, I do. The Christian Church in America gave itself over to secularism quite a while

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

I think you are confusing Creationism and Intelligent Design.
I acknowledge the differences between the two, but consider them to originate from the same agenda.

I read the article in the link you gave. There were some interesting points. Does the fact that objects such as computers are intelligently designed by humans mean for you that humans themselves have been intelligently designed as well? Is it possible that intelligence comes into existence by chance? That is: do you think every designing object must have a designer itself?

One of the issues I see with ID is that even if it can prove that the universe was designed intelligently, it still won't explain what designed the designers. Also, a whole realm is left open as to what designed us humans. For example, the people at Rael claim that aliens designed us. That say that the Bible even supports their claims.

Naturalism is the abandonment of reason, and is akin to admitting effects without a cause.

The dictionary definition says that naturalism is the philosophy that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.

in that ID does not suppose that anything supernatural has occurred.

That's odd, because the authoritative figures on this subject claim otherwise.

These questions have more practical import than all that science has given us in the last 1,000 years. To answer them wrong because we have assumed the answer before starting is simply ludicrous.

As you can see, proponents of Creationism and ID such as yourself are quick to jump from the unnamed Designer to the Christian God and the assumption that we humans must have been designed directly and personally by this Designer. It is much more likely in the scenario of a Designer that we were genetically engineered from apes and have no higher purpose than your average dog or cat. The assumption that higher purpose must exist stems from wishful thinking.

Not in the areas of cosmology or evolution. If these claims were independently verifiable, there would be no creationist movement.

I tend to agree with this, although I believe that no amount of solid science is enough against wishful thinking.

If you're going to be skeptical, shouldn't you be skeptical of ALL unverifiable claims, not just the ones that are based on theistic rather than atheistic assumptions?

Yes, but I can be perfectly skeptical of claims on both sides. The philosophical difference in opinion doesn't stem from preferring natural or supernatural explanations but from the wish to have religion be called religion and science science. I'm all for people being free to follow the personality-worship of their choice. I'll admit that the mathematical angle is a nice one, but the conclusions lead everywhere including UFO-based religions and not just to your church.

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"That is: do you think every designing object must have a designer itself?"

No.

"One of the issues I see with ID is that even if it can prove that the universe was designed intelligently, it still won't explain what designed the designers."

How is that an issue with ID? What most people don't understand is that ID is simply a measurement. It's like measuring the temperature of the water. No thermometer, for example, will tell us HOW something got to be that temperature. It simply measures what is there. The process for finding out HOW the water got hot is different than determining WHAT the temperature is. ID is simply taking the "design" temperature. How the design got there would be an entirely different field altogether. While I am certain that most ID'ers have their own ideas of how this happened, all of them view that as a separate realm of inquiry. For more information of this separation, you should read Philip Johnson's book "The Wedge of Truth".

"The dictionary definition says that naturalism is the philosophy that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations."

Yes, but doing so abandons the very concept of reason. See the last paragraph on this post of mine for more details.

"That's odd, because the authoritative figures on this subject claim otherwise."

Which ones are these? Philip Johnson does not claim that scientifically, nor think that such would be a scientific conclusion. I am not sure whether he supports it spiritually. I am pretty sure from a rather full reading of Dembski that Dembski is against it as well, though Dembski often plays his cards close to his chest. Most people don't know, but most ID'ers believe completely agree with Universal Common Ancestry, Behe and Dembski included. ID does not of itself appeal to any type of design outside what I would consider "human-capable" design (not that it is limitted to our technology, but that it is limitted to the types of physical limitations that people have). There is another type of Intelligent Design, but I don't imagine that you've heard of any of them who follow it, called General Intelligent Design. I myself am quite unfamiliar with it, but I'm pretty sure it is much more supernatural in the requirements of the intelligence it is speaking of. The main work for that is by a Mathematician named Hermann, but I can't remember the title at the moment.

"It is much more likely in the scenario of a Designer that we were genetically engineered from apes and have no higher purpose than your average dog or cat."

ID does not rule this out, while Creationism does. However, most ID'ers and Creationists believe that science is not the only means to knowledge.

"The assumption that higher purpose must exist stems from wishful thinking."

Actually, it stems from revelation. Revelation as a source of knowledge is a key concept in Christianity.

"I tend to agree with this, although I believe that no amount of solid science is enough against wishful thinking."

Alchemy eventually came to an end. Of course, creation/evolution has been a sticking point since before the Greeks, so its probably wishful thinking to think that we will settle any time soon.

"Yes, but I can be perfectly skeptical of claims on both sides."

Great. It was sounding like you were only being skeptical to one side, but if you treat all sides with equal skepticism, then yes, you are truly a skeptic.

"The philosophical difference in opinion doesn't stem from preferring natural or supernatural explanations but from the wish to have religion be called religion and science science."

But you are still missing the fact that ALL cosmologies are inherently a mix of science and philosophy, as admitted by ALL cosmologists.

"I'll admit that the mathematical angle is a nice one, but the conclusions lead everywhere including UFO-based rel

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

How is that an issue with ID? What most people don't understand is that ID is simply a measurement.

You are mistaking quantifiable measurements of physical properties with qualitative ones. ID is not simply about making measurements, it's part of what is called the Wedge Strategy.

Besides, if everything needs to have been designed directly or indirectly, then sooner or later you'll run into the question of what designed the designer. Since you seem to claim that ID apparently allows for pockets of unlinked intelligence, evolution theory should be compatible with it, but the leading ID proponents are against evolution theory.

Yes, but doing so abandons the very concept of reason.

So by embracing reason as the arbiter of one's actions, one abandons it? That doesn't make sense.

Which ones are these? Philip Johnson does not claim that scientifically, ...

Well, Phillip Johnson wrote in 1999 "...the first thing that has to be done is to get the Bible out of the discussion. ... This is not to say that the biblical issues are unimportant; the point is rather that the time to address them will be after we have separated materialist prejudice from scientific fact."

Dembski writes in 'Intelligent Design; the Bridge Between Science and Theology' the following: "Christ is indispensible to any scientific theory, even if its practitioners don't have a clue about him. The pragmatics of a scientific theory can, to be sure, be pursued without recourse to Christ. But the conceptual soundness of the theory can in the end only be located in Christ."

In 2000, Dembski writes "Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God."

Then in 2003, Phillip Johnson is quoted as saying "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

Phillip Johnson makes numerous references to Darwin's theory of evolution and clearly regards evolution incompatible with ID.

It's clear to me that those ID proponents not only believe something supernatural occurred, but also have a very clear idea of who the Designer is. They themselves are fully aware of the strategy to repackage religious aspects in science as a first step to introducing overtly religious aspects into it.

However, most ID'ers and Creationists believe that science is not the only means to knowledge.

Then it rather defeats the purpose to try to use science as a route to finding out about the Designer. What purpose does ID serve you personally? You already know more than science can teach you about the Designer and what the Designer wants from you. Just open the Bible and you'll read what you need to know. Why do you need a foundation in science, which is by its nature rooted in naturalism?

Revelation as a source of knowledge is a key concept in Christianity.

It's a key concept in every teaching that claims close ties to (invisible) supernatural forces. The other key concept is that the worst sin possible is rejecting the religion.

but if you treat all sides with equal skepticism, then yes, you are truly a skeptic.

In all honesty, I don't treat all sides with equal skepticism, because not all sides present as strong a case. It is only natural for example, that I am more skeptical of a teaching that claims that Santa delivers presents than of one that is explained in naturalistic terms of parents buying presents.

But you are still missing the fact that ALL cosmologies are inherently a mix of science and philosophy, as admitted by ALL cosmologists.

The point I have an issue with is mixing it with politics and covert religious intentions. Clearly, the creation and support of the ID movement is largely from people who try to repackage the Christian God in secular terms. Maybe you are an exception, but the on

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"ID is not simply about making measurements, it's part of what is called the Wedge Strategy."

Yes, there are two parts to ID: (1) a mathematical model of Design Detection, and (2) removing materialism as a foregone conclusion in science, law, and education. If you want to know more about it, you should probably read Philip Johnson's book, The Wedge of Truth, and perhaps also Reason in the Balance. Many people make a lot of hoopla over the wedge, but there's nothing really very radical about it. It simply says, "we have assumed too much -- let's go back and revisit our assumptions."

As to your quotes, while I hadn't read the first one (I'd be interested to do so, I know the library has a copy of that book), the rest are simply saying just what I said in my last post -- the ability to ask questions that were previously ruled as out-of-bounds.

"Phillip Johnson makes numerous references to Darwin's theory of evolution and clearly regards evolution incompatible with ID."

The problem is the word "evolution", a word that has so many meanings that it means nothing. If you use it to just mean "change", then there is literally noone in any creationist community who disagrees with you. If you use it to mean "natural selection", Johnson would not disagree with the idea that dead things don't reproduce, and sick things don't reproduce as much. If you mean Universal Common Ancestry, then Johnson probably disagrees with you, though most of the rest of the ID'ers would not. However, if you mean full Darwinism -- that we were created by a completely blind process that had no ends in mind -- that's where you get disagreement.

"It's clear to me that those ID proponents not only believe something supernatural occurred, but also have a very clear idea of who the Designer is."

No doubt at all to me, either. And I never said anything else. What I did say was that they separate theological from scientific arguments, and that Intelligent Design (though I probably would have been more accurate to say "design detection") is the scientific measurement, and the rest comes from other forms of knowledge, not scientific knowledge. I thought I had addressed this in a previous posting, but perhaps not.

"Then it rather defeats the purpose to try to use science as a route to finding out about the Designer."

Why? Science is a route to knowledge, just not the only one. In addition, the different forms of knowledge should not be contradictory, or else one of them is not knowledge. If a person believes that God acted in the world, then it would be a very weak belief if they thought he left no empirical evidence.

"What purpose does ID serve you personally?"

Personally, I am not hugely committed to ID, except to point out to people who are vehemently against it that they usually haven't really understood ID at all. I do agree with, I guess, one and a half of its tenets. I agree that materialism is an unwarranted assumption, and I agree with the idea to remove it as a necessary assumption of science. I also agree with design detection, though I am not entirely sold on the way that Dembski is doing it. It's not that I necessarily think that he is wrong, but I think instead that he is approaching it from the wrong angle, which makes it both harder to comprehend and also harder to determine. I view Intelligent Design from a programming perspective, influenced by Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science". In there, he pointed out that of the cellular automata, Rule 110 was the most chaotic, and also was Turing complete. This lead me to the realization that programmatic expressiveness was a function of the chaotic-ness of the underlying system. The more chaotic the system, the more expressive it is for the programmer. However, this also means that, because the systems are chaotic, errors will cause the problems to be catastrophic, or at least very dramatic. And, it happens to be that Intelligent Designers as a matter of habit bring order to chaotic systems.

"Just open the Bible

Re: Theory or God??

[johnnyb]

"Also, why aren't these nifty ID detection methods ever used in archaeology and SETI?"

Demski's explanatory filter is precisely what is used by both these fields. In SETI, the questions that are asked are:

Is this signal a known type of signal?
Could this signal be a result of random noise?
If the answer is no to both of these, then it has a high likelihood of being a true signal. This is precisely Dembski's explanatory filter in action. SETI tries to accomplish both of these in one swoop by looking for a very high-energy and narrow band (most known types of signals are wide-band, and most noise is low energy).

"BTW, do you say Mozart and Apache are examples of intelligent design because you applied Dembski's "explanatory filter" to them, or because you know people created that stuff?"

While I know origins of Mozart and Apache, let's pretend for a minute that I didn't. If I heard a symphony, I would assume that the symphony had its origins in a designer, and not by random noises. Likewise, if I found a cool computer program on the Internet, and did not know its origin, I would assume that it had a designer and did not come into being through chance manipulations.

Re: Theory or God??

[moz25]

It simply says, "we have assumed too much -- let's go back and revisit our assumptions."

I have no trouble with revisiting assumptions to replace them with better models. We wouldn't have Einstein's theory of relativity if we didn't do so. That is what the scientific method is about. However, this is not just about replacing formulas with better ones but about using ID to make Christianity more acceptable in science. Surely, you agree that there is a strong Christian link?

that we were created by a completely blind process that had no ends in mind -- that's where you get disagreement.

ID as I understand it from you completely allows for this to happen. You agreed in a previous post that the designer of an intelligently designed object (like a computer) does not itself need to be designed. That leads me to the conclusion that intelligence does not need to be linked according to you and Darwinian evolution is possible according to ID. Johnson states opposition to theistic evolution too, so he does seem to favour an involved Designer.

If a person believes that God acted in the world, then it would be a very weak belief if they thought he left no empirical evidence.

Yes, I agree. The problem, however, is that emperical evidence is often ignored or interpreted as a test when it conflicts with the bible. There is perhaps a bit too much noise about what Christianity really claims, because there are too many conflicting accounts.

We have emperical evidence (of sorts) that UFOs exist. Does that mean that a religion based around UFOs finds itself validated that way?

It is an accepted fact that we live in a material reality and that science models a lot of this reality. The issue seems to be whether something outside of this reality - something supernatural - influences this reality. More than removing assumptions, I think it's about adding assumptions where materialistic assumptions don't work out.

Science started off in Western culture as an extension of theology and philosophy. It was made possible by the assumptions about nature brought by Christianity.

If that's true, then hasn't the ID puzzle been solved already in favour of naturalism? The evolution of science seems to favour naturalism so to speak.

Likewise, if naturalism is a faulty assumption, that means that the logical conclusions drawn from naturalism is also faulty.

It's not a black & white situation: naturalism will never be 100% faulty. We can see that a wide range of sciences work very well, even though they are entirely naturalistic. The Designer seems to favour repeatable naturalistic processes with minimum naturalistically detectable involvement.

On the other hand, even if you can prove that intelligent design has taken place in the universe, then still you have no conclusions regarding the Designer and what designed humans. Certainly, as a Christian you would like to find some emperical evidence that can only be interpreted in favour of your own god and not UFO-beings or even theistic evolution?

I realize that I am accusing you of having bias. On the other hand, I have every reason to want your claims to be true: according to my present views, I have only a double-digit number of years left to live. According to your views (at least how I assume them to be), I have millions of cool years ahead of me. It's against my interest for me to be right and in that sense, I am biased against myself :-)

You are saying that Christians cannot do cosmology with non-materialistic assumptions on the same playing field as naturalists with materialistic assumptions, and complaining that Christians are trying to impose their views on others, but not complaining about the same for materialists.

Neither person can deny that a material world exists and that our physical reality is ruled by highly consistent laws of physics. We have overwhelming amounts of emperical evidence for that. The only part where Christian cla

Stands to reason

[Bogtha]

Society has changed immensely over the past few thousand years. Evolutionary pressure has changed because the skills required to reproduce successfully are different. Being a good hunter is no longer a core skill. Being able to read and write is.

I wonder to what extent the difference in population growth for various countries will influence this. At the moment, first-world countries have much lower reproductive rates than third-world countries, but if the HIV epidemic continues, that situation could reverse itself.

Re:Stands to reason

[Versatile Dinosaur]

If reading and writing abilities are necessary for reproduction then the rising generations in the US and Australia are doomed. Trendy left-wing P.C. "education" is failing to produce literate students.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need education to reproduce.. look at the poorly educated masses of people who reproduce in the US like crazy.

social welfare ensures the survival of even the dumbest and most incapable parts of our population. there is no life or death consequences becuase someone will always be there to ensure survival of of our offspring

Re:Stands to reason

[JoeBuck]

Evolution has selected for resistance to disease organisms. About 90% of indigenous Americans died when the Europeans came because they lacked genetic resistance to a number of European diseases.

In some populations, the ability to digest milk as an adult (which was a mutation) was a survival trait that got a lot of people through the winter alive. Most adult humans are lactose-intolerant, because their ancestors found other things besides milk from cattle to live on.

Re:Stands to reason

[Anonymous Coward]

I can read and write....when do I get laid?

From TFA

[Overzeetop]

"But several experts strongly criticized this aspect of the finding, saying it was far from clear that the new alleles conferred any cognitive advantage or had spread for that reason"

Looks like we can evolve all we want...it's not necesarily going to make us smarter. Certainly not by 2008.

Re:From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32456

Re:From TFA

[sigmaseven]

Looks like we can evolve all we want...it's not necesarily going to make us smarter. Certainly not by 2008.

Then we might as well just start dumping coffee in the water supply. Works for me. And if it doesn't enhance intelligence -- and I've always suspected in my own informal studies it does -- then at least we can all be stupid faster.

And sorry for not making it through TFA. Raiders/Patriots. Priorities, you know.

Re:From TFA

[Helios1182]

Call me a troll if you want, but the fact is healther more educated people reproduce at a much slower rate than the poor and sick. Almost every 1st world nation has a declining birth rate. 3rd world births rates are growing. And even in 1st world countries birth rates are inversely proportional to education.

So evolution may not be going in the direction people think it ought. Then again we need a time frame of thousands or tens of thousands of years to see any difference, so I'm not too concerned about it right now.

Re:From TFA

[Overzeetop]

True, but eugenics isn't exactly getting rave reviews anymore.

Interesting

[MattW]

I wonder how long it would take us to devolve via natural selection. Since there is an inverse relationship between education level and child rearing, then if one assumes more intelligent people tend to have higher educations and that higher intelligence when breeding contributes to intellectual evolution, then we may well be devolving because stupid people disproportionately reproduce. Of course, we'll probably genetically engineer our own brainpower up before too long, and solve that problem while opening up a whole new can of worms.

Re:Interesting

[loudmouth]

...if one assumes more intelligent people tend to have higher educations... then we may well be devolving because stupid people disproportionately reproduce.

You make a lot of assumptions. Maybe you need to raise your education.

Re:Interesting

[MattW]

Or, possibly, you need a sense of humor. Although the assumptions are actually almost certainly both right the conclusion is wrong for other reasons, which is why the whole thing is tongue in cheek.

Re:Interesting

[king-manic]

I wonder how long it would take us to devolve via natural selection. Since there is an inverse relationship between education level and child rearing, then if one assumes more intelligent people tend to have higher educations and that higher intelligence when breeding contributes to intellectual evolution, then we may well be devolving because stupid people disproportionately reproduce. Of course, we'll probably genetically engineer our own brainpower up before too long, and solve that problem while opening up a whole new can of worms.

This is untrue, more intelligent people have fewer children, but these children almost always survive to reproductive age. It's simply a diffeerent strategy. one economic echulon (my spelling sucks) goes for a many children, few survivors method. whiel another goes for few children, but immense resources put into each.

Re:Interesting

[loudmouth]

Now Matt, if I didn't have a brilliant sense of humor, how could I have made that amazing joke about you "raising your education"?

BTW, was that the funny part of your post? -- "more intelligent people tend to have higher educations" ??

If you think your stupid (or perhaps I should say "low educated") assumption is accurate, then the "whole thing" was not so tongue in cheek.

Re:Interesting

[loudmouth]

more intelligent people have fewer children
I know this sounds like nitpicking, but the relationship is between # of children and education, not intelligence. It's important to maintain that distinction, I think.

Re:Interesting

[proteonic]

Access to education does not correlate with intelligence. While an intelligent parent (in some sense of the word) may push his/her children harder to work hard in school and get a good education, this doesn't mean that intelligent parents have intelligent children, or that stupid parents have stupid children. Don't confuse intelligence with education. Access to education is inversely related to socioeconomic status, the same is true for reproductive success (number of children had by a couple). This does not imply that poor, uneducated people having children will lead to a population that is less intelligent. Think about the Dark Ages. The majority of Europe was poor, and uneducated. Now look where we are today. Cheers,

Re:Interesting

[Slur]

I think it's presumptuous to say that intelligence is purely a function of genetics. There are plenty of fairly average or below average individuals who give birth to exceptional children. There is a lot of cultural influence that determines how a person's innate intelligence is used, or under-used.

I would speculate that African-American children born in the inner-city, for example, where the life-expectancy for black males is very low, must have exceptional adaptive skills in order to survive, even more to thrive. Such hell-holes are breeding some of the most potentially brilliant humans we can imagine, but the culture, and the imaginations of such children are stunted by the realities and potentials of life in those places.

Likewise, there is a lot of intelligence involved in surviving in your typical middle-American Fundamentalist cultures, where everyone is encouraged to distrust everyone else, and where communal instincts are subordinated to an authoritarian culture. However, because the individuals living in these cultures focus their minds on illogical, reactive emotions, and group cohesion is valued over individuality, the expression of their innate intelligence becomes stunted, or diverted into religious piety and sports-fandom.

Obviously my examples are weak, but I'm sure the point is made. Intelligence which is expressed in the ways we Slashdotters might recognize - through analytical linguistic methods - is not the only kind of intelligence - nor in fact is it necessarily the most desirable. And I would even go so far as to say that linguistic expression is only the tip of a very large iceberg as far as human intelligence is concerned. If anything, the various delusions and fantasies we concoct in order to tolerate our existence are universally increasing our intelligence across the board.

Re:Interesting

[Ihlosi]

I think it's presumptuous to say that intelligence is purely a function of genetics.

It is equally presumptuous to say that there are no genetic factors whatsoever influencing intelligence.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel bad about your spelling, at least you can enjoy playing with all your kids.

Re:Interesting

[leifb]

Furthermore, the well-educated, wealthy, successful offspring rarely meet the uneducated & poor, much less mate with them.

With two mostly-isolated breeding pools, it's possible that we're seeing the start of a further species differentiation.

Re:Interesting

[loudmouth]

Only if there are significant genetic differences between the two groups you describe. There's no reason to assume that there is some simple relationship between genes and education/wealth/success.

Re:Interesting

[loudmouth]

Who is saying that? Nobody.

We're pissing in our gene pool

[Anonymous Coward]

By having human societies based on sets of morals and ethics wherein the most well-adapted and most successful use their intelligence and abilities to protect the less and least well-adapted/successful from coming to harm/dying/being unable to reproduce, each generation further pollutes our gene pool with genes that natural selection would've selected out.
Natural selection is no longer working on the human population, and many deaths, from violence and catastrophe, have little or absolutely no regard for the genetic makeup of the individuals involved.
I know it sounds like something a Nietzsche-reading Nazi would say, but it's also something a Nietzsche-reading biology student would say, and I'm the second one. If it sounds like I'm saying something absolutely horrid when I say that charity and pity are weakening the species year by year by year, perhaps it's because of how attached you are to those morals and ethics? As Friedrich said, pity is practical nihilism... And so, by extension the Christian religion that holds pity as almost above all other virtues, is actively promoting a destructive and downward course, unravelling what nature has spent so long building into us.

Nearly everyone I know has some sort of natural inborn defect... in the wild, that is (in animals, and would be in us) immensely less common.

If this sounds like the type of thinking that leads to unpleasant conclusions, I'm just saying think about it objectively from a scientific standpoint. I've been wrestling with it for a while, because while it seems obviously true to me, it's also obviously at odds with everything that my upbringing and my capacity for empathy tells me about what constitutes good behaviour towards my fellow speciesmembers. It seems like I need to choose between loving individual human beings, or loving the human being as a whole species, because the process that strengthens and protects the species is the one that works by killing as many of the members as it can. :-\

Re:We're pissing in our gene pool

[necrostopheles]

Is does not imply ought. Once you've finished Nietzsche, read some Hume.

Re:We're pissing in our gene pool

[Anonymous Coward]

You're living proof of your own argument!

Explains a lot

[ylikone]

It is a given that a marority of humans have undeveloped brains... I mean, just look at the entire republican party!

/sorry

Re:Explains a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

har har! And it's you and your socialist ilk that are taxing the intelligent, hard-working, productive people, preventing them from rearing more hard-working, intelligent, productive children, and instead given handouts to welfare broodmares so they can pop out another dozen poor, stupid, violent idiots! Thanks chum! Oh, but it's the Republicans who are stupid. RIGHT. IDIOT.

"Smart Jews"

[Tablizer]

A related and interesting article on "Smart Jews"

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm? story_id=4032638

It seems that discrimination in Europe may have led to higher intelligence.

Re:"Smart Jews"

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's more likely that the requirement for most jewish boys to read hebrew at the age of 13(bar mitzvah?) lead to their increased empoloyment in clerical jobs, as most if not all were taught to read and write in their native language as well.

This was at a time when most people could not read or write. Hence the average jewish male was much more eligable for employment in a clerical position than the average male in the population as a whole.

The higher salaries conferred in clerical positions leads in turn to suppossedly higher "intelligence", due to the increased ability to afford higher education. You'll find most "intelligencia" come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.

Economic factors, not genes, have lead to the results the article describes.

These days it's the poor who tend to reproduce ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The handouts increase as the number of children increase.

Is it surprising??

[Wolfier]

1. Environment changes
2. Animals adapts genetically
3. Goto 1

Since when is natural selection called evolution

[CrazyJim1]

I thought Natural selection is the process of genes being passed on from parents to siblings. When there is a benefit, the genes start showing noticble traits. For example, Mendel's work, or any biologist or farmer that breeds for specific traits.

Evolution is the process in which things change into entirely new species. Is the article trying to say that some people's brains will become so complex that they'll no longer be able to breed with the lesser brained people of the world? And eventually these super brained people will form their own species of Homo Superior or create a band of Xmen?

More Information

[Dave500]

And second opinions here and here

I had a thought

[SpeedyG5]

but right in the middle, my brain evolved and I lost it.

Learn the nature of science.

[Dimensio]

Now that is a loaded statement.

No, it isn't.

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

Creationists say this like it means that it's somehow on shaky ground. It isn't. "Theory" is the highest level that any explanation reaches in science. There is no higher label. The dismissing of evolution as "nothing but a theory" only demonstrates that the one making the dismissal is fundamentally ignorant of scientific terminology.

Ask any REAL biologist (like those with Ph.D.'s or those who work in colleges), and they will admit evolution is a theory.

And theories never get any higher in rank.

It is not fact.

"Facts" are simply statements about single observations, nothing more. "Facts" really don't mean anything in the long run in science.

It is not a scientific law.

And it never will be. Despite the ignorant rantings of creationists, theories do not ever become laws. Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Laws are general statements about collections of previous observations by which future observations are predicted. Theories are an attempt to explain the underlying causes of the observation. Example: the "Law of gravity" is a model of the resultant force caused by gravitational attraction between two masses. The theory of gravity -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- is an attempt to explain why that force occurs.

Laws are no more certain than theories. Theores do not "graduate" into laws. Laws can just as easily be falsified -- in fact, the "Law of Gravity" as we know it from Newton is false. Saying that "evolution is a theory, not a law" as if this casts some doubt on the validity of evolution again only demonstrates that you are fundamentally ignorant of how science works.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

No, Intelligent Design postulates -- based upon faulty premises -- that certain features in biological systems are too "complex" to have come about through evolution, and therefore must have been "designed" by some unnamed designer. "God" doesn't enter into "Intelligent Design" as it is presented by the shysters who try to shove it into school cirriculums.

That you think that it directly refers to a god -- especially the God that you happen to worship -- only further demonstrates that ID is nothing but a sham to try to sneak religion into schools.

As for "know", I'm sorry but claiming that you "know" something isn't valid justification for scientific consideration. If you have no evidence, then you have no case.

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

The Big Bang doesn't cover abiogenesis. Please actually learn the science behind it before attempting to discuss it.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening? How many times would I have to flip a quarter and get heads in a row? 100,000,000,000 times? 100,000,000,000,000 times?

You know the statistical likelyhood? Please present the math. Show all of your work. If you can't then you don't have a case. Please avoid the fallacy of pointing to the "likelyhood" of the universe appearing in its exact configuration as it is and pretending that the universe couldn't have just as easily supported life had it come about in a somewhat different configuration unless you can demonstrate that it is the case.

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

False analogy, demonstrating a fundamental ignorance of cosmology. Try to understand why physicists say what they say about universal origins before thinking that

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Planesdragon]

Creationists say this like it means that it's somehow on shaky ground. It isn't.

Atheists say it as if there were no difference between the principle of evolution and the historic sequence of evolution. There is.

Specifically, we can test and observe and falsify evolution. It occurs in rats, and bunnies, and fruit flies. And humans, apparantly.

Calling the principle of evolution a theory is simply wrong. It's a basic biological fact, as far past theory as Newton's Laws. (We're also slowly approaching the time when we should call Relativity a law. It's not there yet, but it will be eventually.)

Now, since we don't have a time machine, we CANNOT falsify historical evolution. It's just a theory, and absent a time machine we won't ever be able to test it.

Muddying the water between historical and ongoing evolution is responsible for, if not most, then all of the conflict between Creationism and Atheist-evolution. Kindly stop doing it.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the statistical likelyhood? Please present the math.

It's worse than that... The likelihood that X occurred in the past is exactly 1 if it occurred. Arguing likelihoods about things that have happened is stupid.

This is an assertion.

It's also a non-sequitur. Evolution does not preclude a deity, or even preclude an intelligent design. The presumptuous twats who assume they know absolutely a deity's will and intention are placing themselves at the same level as their deity. If they truly believe, then evolution could just as easily be God's will and design.

This whole "intelligent design" thing is an excuse to feel god-like. You'd think natural disasters would kinda point out how puny we really are.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, micro-evolution is biological fact, that isn't debated so much. You can prove it through observation. The thing in debate is more often macro-evolution and speciation through evolution. The intelligent design "theory" people seem to think that complexity in life is to advanced, ergo it could not have arisen through chance, ergo there is a god-thing.

There is a distinct problem with this, however; though the theory of evolution is not proven on a large scale, it has more evidence than a god, and a god tends to defy proof by definition. If a thing defies proof by definition, many argue it has no place in science.

The ID argument leaves out all the positive evidence for a slow evolution, and then creates it's own postulates with absolutely no evidence. Because they have disavowed the evidence for evolution, they can claim they have as much evidence as it.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Dimensio]

Now, since we don't have a time machine, we CANNOT falsify historical evolution.

But we can. Find a series of precambrian rabbit fossils, and everything we've constructed regarding the history of life comes tumbling down. A transposon found in whales and cows but not in hippos? That's a real problem with the way things are set up now.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[king-manic]

And it never will be. Despite the ignorant rantings of creationists, theories do not ever become laws. Theories and laws are two different types of statements. Laws are general statements about collections of previous observations by which future observations are predicted. Theories are an attempt to explain the underlying causes of the observation. Example: the "Law of gravity" is a model of the resultant force caused by gravitational attraction between two masses. The theory of gravity -- more commonly known as "relativity theory" -- is an attempt to explain why that force occurs.

Actually it's a little more loose then that, a law is a theory someone decided to call a law. A theory is what they have told us we need to call it because a law sounds pretentious and when you falsify it, it makes science looks bad in the press. If I wanted to call my discovery on how one sock out of every pair disappears in the dryer "the law of kingmanics penis" I could do that. If the rest of the community accepts it then I have just coined a law.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[DigiShaman]

This is just my 2 cents, so have at it what you will...

I personally, DO believe in "Intelligent Design" but only based on faith and not science. I would never try and put fourth blind faith in the relm of science. Even if I would (or could), it wouldn't go any farther then a hypothesis at best.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

All you creationist dipshits who have no fucking clue about how science works need to be sterilzed and sent to a desert island. You can have your damn abstinence and voodoo science there in peace.

I choose reality. Not fucking idiocy.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

likelihood

i was about to call you up on miscorrecting a spelling error, but then i checked and you're right. it looks incredibly stupid and makes it harder to read but likelihood is the actual spelling of the word

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Jim_Callahan]

The fact taht you actually gave this joker a full reply cracks me up. You, sir, have far too much time on your hands. Nice post, though, except for the bit about Newton's Laws. Newton's laws are not wrong. They are inexact, i.e. they lost their reliability on extremely fine scales. Pretty much any mathematical model you can think of is similar. Quantum mechanics is only acceptably precise to a scale of about 10^-13 angstroms at its best (so far as we know, that's all we can measure to verify, and no, I have no clue how they measure anything that small). Likewise, anything involving gas modelling is inherently imprecise, since everything is statistical, and thus inexact (to use a generallization like 'pressure' is to invite inaccuracy, as at a certain scale it's no longer accurate to model individual particles hitting a surface as a continuous force). Yet neither quantum mechanics nor chemistry in general is 'wrong'. As with any model, you just have to work within the context for which the model was designed. At attainable speeds for macroscale objects, the error of Newton's laws is miniscule beyond being worth worrying about for most applications. Ok, I'm done ranting now.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Dimensio]

They are inexact,

Which means that, as a "universal" law, Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is wrong. That it works on some scales means that it's a decent approximation, but approximations are not 'correct', they're just 'good enough' for the scales in which they're used.

i.e. they lost their reliability on extremely fine scales.

They break down both at the microscopic and the macroscopic levels, in part because of general relativity.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[KnightTristan]

This is the best answer I've ever _ever_ seen. I'm a big fan of evolution theory but I never really know what to answer to claims like "evolution is just a theory". This one just nailed it.

THANK YOU!

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[koekepeer]

"Calling the principle of evolution a theory is simply wrong. It's a basic biological fact, as far past theory as Newton's Laws."

don't get me wrong, i support evolution theory. but it's far from fact. in fact, the notion of facts and truths don't have a place in science. science is not a new religion (although many people treat it that way).

it's the same as saying that you are an atheist. to think you can have a proof of the non-existence of a God means conforming to the same system as religious people, thus being completely non-scientific, and actually ridiculing your own "rational" argumentation.

give me agnosticism any day. the 7 years i worked as a scientist taught me something very important: scientists are bigger doubters than perceived by the outside world. read some Russel - there's a short essay on why he became an agnostic, and some really good books like "religion and science" that enlighten this subject considerably.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[mondoterrifico]

I have no idea how you got modded up so high. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. To conflate
the two of them shows ignorance or trollishness, take your pick.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[SilverSun]

I completely agree. I would hope you are american to strengthen my believe in the future of that country (maybe your spelling suggests otherwise). Each of your points is very true.

Maybe I can add that this apparent conflict is not a conflict between religion and science. I am catholic and also have a PhD in particle physics. There is no contradictions what so ever. The only conflict is between creationalist which are (from my european perspective anyway) a very twisted minority inside christianity.

Thanks for the great posting I just whish not only the slashdot wourd read it.

Cheers

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Decaff]

Now, since we don't have a time machine, we CANNOT falsify historical evolution. It's just a theory, and absent a time machine we won't ever be able to test it.

Of course you can test it. You can make predictions about the way things could have evolved and what intermediate forms may have been present. You can then look for such forms in fossils. For example, there have been several theories about the lineage of whales, and fossil finds have helped test these theories.

In this sense evolution is a lot like cosmology. We can't go back to the early stages of the universe, but we can predict what should be there then look at distant (effectively 'fossil') light with telescopes.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[xerxesdaphat]

It's a basic biological fact, as far past theory as Newton's Laws. (We're also slowly approaching the time when we should call Relativity a law. It's not there yet, but it will be eventually.)

Man. Did you even read the above post? He said, theories don't graduate into laws... they are completely different things. Please actually RTFP before replying.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact taht you actually gave this joker a full reply cracks me up.

Why? I thought it was pretty well reasoned and informative. Who cares if it was written as a reply to a troll?

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

"For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?"

That the GP asked this question is also rather revealing of a lack of understanding of science and probability. It's related to anthropomorphic fallacies.

If I throw a coin and get a head, the probability of that event once it has happened is 1 as it has happened. The time to ask "what is the chance I will throw a head" is before you throw, and to be able to answer intelligently you either have to have (a) done a series of trials from which you surmise (which is not proof, just an informed guess) what is likely to happen if it is thrown again or (b) create a model of the process. Since we can't "play God" and create universes to see what happens, then (b) is the only option we have.

With regards to the Universe the answer is that it exists, thus it was possible occurence for it to come into existence.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[curious.corn]

Amen, Dimensio, Amen... ;-)

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[johnnyb]

"I personally, DO believe in "Intelligent Design" but only based on faith and not science."

Then you are speaking of creationism, not Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is a mathematical model, not a faith-based one.

"I would never try and put fourth blind faith in the relm of science."

This has two problems:

1) faith should never be blind.
2) if you would not put your faith to the test, what good is it?

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[johnnyb]

"But we can. Find a series of precambrian rabbit fossils, and everything we've constructed regarding the history of life comes tumbling down."

Not necessarily. One could easily propose a secondary hypothesis for how they arrived there. For example, in several thousand years, archaeologists will be able to say that they have found dinosaur bones mixed with human bones.

Historical inquiry always has this kind of "fudge factor". In fact, there are spots where the fossils are out-of-order. The reason given is some sort of geological displacement. That's all well and good, except that at a few of the spots the only evidence for the displacement is that the fossils are out-of-order. That doesn't mean that it's incorrect, just that it's ultimately untestable because noone can know if the secondary hypotheses are correct, or how many of them there needs to be to look at the evidence in the correct light.

Also, you failed to point out that multiple theories can predict the same placements. In those cases, there is no way to tell between two theories. You can keep to one because it's the way its been done, but ultimately you can't test the historical theories to tell which one is true.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting you relate socks to that particular area.

8^)

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[CausticPuppy]

Now, since we don't have a time machine, we CANNOT falsify historical evolution.

Sure we can.
Just one example off the top of my head...

Evolutionary theory states that wings and forearms evolved from the same structure in vertebrates. Therefore, evolution predicts that no vertebrate fossil will possess separate forearms AND wings (something like pegasus). This is a reasonable prediction because we already have plenty of INvertebrates that have forearms + wings (flying insects for example).

This hypothesis could be falsified by counterexample, i.e. the discovery of a vertebrate fossil that has separate forearms and wings.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[balls199]

Actually, I remember a science class in Highschool where we were taught that a scientific law is a scientific theory that stood the test of time.

For example, Newton's laws of motion were once considered theories, but since no one has proved them false (excluding quantum physics), they are now considered laws.

I believe evolution has been around long enough to be considered law. My only guess as to why evolution would not be considered law is either because of the long period of time it takes for evolution to occur, or because of political reasons.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Was about to debate... not worth the effort...

Christ loves you... If you accept that, he'll work on healing your past and reducing the anger you feel on a day to day basis.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[ChrisMaple]

Conventional, nontrivial definitions of "God" involve contradictions. Religious people don't see or gloss over these contradictions, or don't understand that things with contradictory properties cannot exist. Adhering to logic is rejecting the system of religious people.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[jjr1]

Does anyone else think this title should be changed to " Researchers Say Human Brain is Still Being Intelligently Designed"? I wouldn't want any scientist to lose their funding.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[chad9023]

One of the nice thing about scientific theories are they can be modified. If a portion of a theory is proven wrong, it can be adapted, mutated, or removed in order to bring the theory in line with observations. Generally speaking, religions are less maleable when it comes to incorporating new information. That's one of the reasons I like Hindu's, they are very flexible. "Hmm, you say this Christ fellow was born of a virgin, and had magical abilities? Must be another incarnation of Krishna!"

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Darby]

This hypothesis could be falsified by counterexample, i.e. the discovery of a vertebrate fossil that has separate forearms and wings.

Don't the flying monkees from the Wizard of Oz meet this criteria?

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[DigiShaman]

No, I'm not speaking of creationism as put forth by the Bible. I speaking of evolution, but the external enviromental events that shaped the outcome of evolution was tied to an omni-present force whome I call "God". What some call chaos in the universe, I call order beyond comprehension.

1) faith should never be blind.
2) if you would not put your faith to the test, what good is it?

Why not? You don't worry about being hit hit by a car, or being shot at when you walk out the front door of your house do you? If you don't, then you have faith in your own future as one with a good out look.

Why my faith is purely blind, stupid, ignorant, and/or unintelligent; I still hold onto such ideals as my only salvation into the afterlife. Because science cannot answer questions such as the "soul, God, afterlife..etc", I feel compelled to have faith in these things.

Let me ask you something. Have you ever wondered what or who you were before you were born? Ever wonder what will happen to your consciousness? While science may paint a bleak picture of something to the effect of "you live you die and that's it", do you really feel a sense of closure and fullfillness?

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Planesdragon]

theories don't graduate into laws

Kindly name me a theory from Newton's time that is still a theory.

Theories DO graduate into laws, or at least become the genesis of laws. Artifically comingling different principles to support the bulk of a "theory"--such as comingling the law of "survival of the fitest" and the theory of "natural selection as origin of species"--is just bad science, regardless of the box you choose to put them in.

Example of the same principle in a different situation: arguing that Newton's Theory of Gravity and the rumors of rocks from the sky, or "meteors", are in opposition. Because, after all, any rock we've ever seen put into the sky falls down shortly thereafter.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Planesdragon]

the notion of facts and truths don't have a place in science

Science is all about finding truths and facts!
Science is all about finding truths and facts!
Science is all about finding truths and facts!

It's the whole point of the scientific method--to seperate what we Know from what we Think. Yes, we have to Think it before we can Know it, and so Theory is a vital part of Science--but thinking that we can never and will never move Theories to Laws is just bad science.

Bad science of a kind, btw, that WILL turn science into Atheism. Thankfully, scientists are bright folk, and by and large can seperate the two.

Of course:

give me agnosticism any day.

Exactly right. Spot-on. Yay!

The only religion that science should be even commenting on is secular agnosticism. We *don't* know if a burning bush spoke to Moses thousands of years ago or not. We don't even know what I had for breakfast on this day ten years ago.

Those of us of whatever religon should not be trying to use Science to disprove other religions. And a fair portion of capital-A atheists *do* try and do just that. The bastards.

Re:Learn the nature of science.

[Planesdragon]

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism

Which is kind of like saying that intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity.

Both statements are technically correct and practically wrong. Christians are among the proponents of intelligent design (and among its detractors, too--there are a hell of a lot of us).
And while there are doubtless a few Atheists among the ID proponents, Atheism as a movement (such as it is) is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is that numerous atheists, in their way of preaching without admiting that they're preacing, comingle both halves of the Theory of Evolution and oppose any attempt to rationally seperate them.

A dramatic minority of religions in the world have a problem with the idea that life evolves. Most have no problems at all with the idea that cats and dogs might one day walk around and talk in English, or that they might someday become one single species we'd call "Pet" or four species we could call "do", "dg", "ca", and "ct".

But most religions have a problem when science tries to tell them that Brhama did not create the world, that God did not shape the heavens and the earth, or that Goddess did not give brith to all living things. And they're quite right to.

Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[Neo-Rio-101]

With all this talk of natural selection vs. creationism... one thing I just don't understand is this:

If "God" is said to exist in all life having created it, I would have thought that creationism and natural selection is mutually inclusive, rather than exclusive.
If God is in all life, and I am alive (and therefore part of "God") then I too can create BY MEANS OF evolution. I can create and evolve myself with ideas and actions.

I think the Bible actually explains all this, but for some reason a lot of the religious people missed the point completely.

Re:Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[benjamindees]

Even the religionists can't agree on whether the world is ruled by pre-destination or by free-will. And, really, to quote our favorite cartoon pastor, the bible says a lot of things.

Re:Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the "religious people" (that is, the conveniently pious ones), view God as someone from whom you take orders. Very much Old Testement style. These people are easily swayed to whatever political party has the most pious representatives, currently the Republican Party. These people, combined with the mathematically challenged people who believe in the current President's pie-in-the-sky economic policies, are usually enough to swing the election with only a modest amount of vote tampering.

If you view "God" as a force like the native Americans did/do, or like the Gaia thing then, yes, God is in you. But you don't need a fabricated tome of rules for the weak and meek like the Bible to realize this. Remember only that the popes advocated the slaughter of innocents, a priest in eastern europe once slit the throats of 1200 men in one day and more than one of today's televangelists have purchased the "arms" of a woman.

You can find God on your own, and it doesn't have a beard.

Re:Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[KillShill]

well creation means from nothing.

by definition, evolution requires a previous state, including matter and energy.

so no, any living or non living thing in the universe can create. they can build, assemble, fabricate, put together, etc but can't create.

if you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you'd have to create the universe first.. but you would have your existence already beforehand. so in effect, no. see below.

the problem with saying if god created the universe, then who created god is like saying the laws of physics stay the same near gravitationally massive objects (black holes). they don't. so normal logic would also not apply in the case of god and creation.

Re:Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[Neo-Rio-101]

If you view "God" as a force like the native Americans did/do, or like the Gaia thing then, yes, God is in you. But you don't need a fabricated tome of rules for the weak and meek like the Bible to realize this.

For sure. The "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" cryptic comment that Jesus made actually hints that God (according to Christianity anyway) is not some guy in the sky, but all encompassing of living creatures. On a similar note, while Jesus doesn't outright say it, the kingdom of heaven is not a place you go when you die either.

The problem is that many who call themselves "Christian" don't understand this, and many who don't call themselves Christan do. IMHO. The problem is that Jesus was so cryptic that in order to understand what he meant you needed to be able to think - and unfortunately not everyone knows how to do that.

But whatever.... now I'm just rambling.

Re:Summoning the Spaghetti Monster

[Slur]

You're quite right about the sayings of Jesus. They make a lot more sense if you take his statements as pertaining to that which Jesus represents in all of us. He speaks always in ways that benefit those who utilize him within their own psychology. His words and actions connect him to deeper archetypes in our psyche. I'm always impressed by the discipline of Jesus - or at least those who recorded his legend - in that he never forgets that as far as others are concerned he only exists as a mental symbol.

Buddhism impresses me more, of course, because it's so much more complete, straightforward, scientific, and doesn't generally kowtow to the superstitions of tribal people. In fact, it is only through studying Buddhism that I came to fully appreciate the teachings and sometimes obscure symbolism of Jesus. Those who worship Jesus as the Only Son of God may never understand, but the New Testament is basically a remedial primer in self-realization, whereas Buddhism is the master course.

Evolving? Pah!

[MrDiablerie]

Not if my alcoholic genes have anything to do with it. Then again, it could be natural selection at work. Only the strongest brain cells survive.

Re:Since when is natural selection called evolutio

[Anonymous Coward]

no, natural selection is the pressures applied to the species that weed out those that are not suited for the environment.

microevolution is the process of small changes appearing within a species
macroevolution is the process of things changing into a different species entirely

umm... no?

[xilmaril]

visualize this. the big bang happens, everything goes randomly everywhere, then gravity starts bringing it together, making the universe 'chunky' as it currently is. try breaking apart a watch, shaking it in a bag, and having none of the bits stick together. and there's not even a force making watch-bits fall together in that analogy.

and the whole 'god created us' thing only works if you believe in god. I'm sure that works for you, but the majority of people aren't christian, so searching for other explanations is kinda neccesary.

p.s. - the pope believes in evolution. he has said so, in official papal newsletters. doesn't matter for you unless you're catholic, but just saying, believing in god doesn't mean you believe in intelligent design.

link the first link google provided me with on the pope subject.

Re:umm... no?

[johnnyb]

"and the whole 'god created us' thing only works if you believe in god. I'm sure that works for you, but the majority of people aren't christian, so searching for other explanations is kinda neccesary."

But the VAST majority do believe in God. And Biblically, even if they don't know how to worship Him, most people who believe in God believe in the same one that Christians do (see Paul's speech in Athens).

"p.s. - the pope believes in evolution. he has said so, in official papal newsletters."

Depends on what you mean by "evolution". Even young-earth creationists believe in "evolution" for some meaning of evolution. What the pope also said was that to suppose that the process of evolution was unguided would be the abandonment of reason, and would be akin to admitting effects without a cause. This is not the same "evolution" as is presented in textbooks, which usually specifically mention an unguided process.

"doesn't matter for you unless you're catholic, but just saying, believing in god doesn't mean you believe in intelligent design."

ID would agree fully with the pope. In fact, most ID'ers are probably more strongly allied with evolution than the pope is. Most ID'ers agree with universal common ancestry, but disagree that you could get the results that we have in life without a designer to guide the process.

Republicans might have good reason to reject this

[Anonymous Coward]

idea of evolution, because they seem to get less intelligent every day!

When I gaze into my fishtank...

[randumspin]

Creatures from Another world? The past? The present?

Why yes. Take a look over there. Its the horseshoe crab, one of natures "living fossils". Even if you don't have a saltwater reef aquarium, you may notices roaches in your friends apartment...perhaps a sign that he doesn't clean up well enough or perhaps a sign that life will persist.

Evolution occurs as long as it is beneficial, to the organism in question or to its general environment. The oceans haven't presented enough of a change from way back when for the horseshoe crab and many other species to modify its design. Similarly, cockroaches are pretty good at finding corners and crevices to hide in and scavange, thus they have not needed change their modus operandi or physical design.

Humans are in an entirely different environment. In fact it is said that we are the only species which controls and modifies their environment. As such, it is a natural conclusion that as long as the environment and conditions are variable, evolution will continue to progress...always looking for that perfect design for life that maximizes its ability to persist.

Re:When I gaze into my fishtank...

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact it is said that we are the only species which controls and modifies their environment.

Beavers all around the world would strongly disagree with you.

Re:When I gaze into my fishtank...

[hackstraw]

In fact it is said that we are the only species which controls and modifies their environment.

Beavers.

This isn't stopping evolution...

[Dimensio]

...this is just changing the selection pressures. Ultimately, advances in medical technology alter the environment in such a way that it is less hostile to the reprodutive success to a given genetic range.

Re:This isn't stopping evolution...

[tabbser]

I don't see a missuse. Perhaps you could point it out.

Human evolution is dead

[Jason1729]

Evolution selects favorable traits and removes unfavorable ones from the gene pool. Modern medicine and science all people who would be weeded out by evolution to live fairly normal lives and remain a part of the gene pool.

Re:Human evolution is dead

[king-manic]

Evolution selects favorable traits and removes unfavorable ones from the gene pool. Modern medicine and science all people who would be weeded out by evolution to live fairly normal lives and remain a part of the gene pool.

If you surviev you are okay. Weeding out is undesirable. We want as much variation as possible so when a really bad selective factors comes along our chance to adapt to it is higher because we have more variety. Specialization is a locally opitmal but globally sub optimal strategy. Your idea of "fitness" is a certain type of specialization (ie. good looking, smart, athletic) however it is a local maxima and may not be what is most fit latter. (for instance a virilent parasite that feeds on mussle mass but is only fatal when you have X number of them.)

Re:Human evolution is dead

[Jason1729]

Nothing I said contridicted your points. I merely said things are not being selected for or against anymore in humans.

I made no conclusions about whether that was good or bad. You've just said why it's good.

Re:Human evolution is dead

[king-manic]

Nothing I said contridicted your points. I merely said things are not being selected for or against anymore in humans.

I made no conclusions about whether that was good or bad. You've just said why it's good.

True enough. I also must point out that there are selective factors but they tend to be more subtle then in the past.

Re:Human evolution is dead

[Maxo-Texas]

Selection is going on.

Certain groups are not even replacing their current population. They raise the children they have in such a way that they do not replace themselves either. Meanwhile other groups are having 4 or more children who mostly survive to reproductive age and who are raised so they are likely to have large numbers of children as well. Not all of them are in poverty- many of them are successful but hold certain religious beliefs.

It is really happening at a very high rate in geologic terms.

Meanwhile in other parts of the planet, disease and famine are strongly selecting for people resistant to disease or who can survive famine.

Hoist by your own petard

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You're as wrong as the people you criticize

Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

What engine has been removed? There is still a differential rate of reproduction between different groups and so natural selection is carrying on exactly like it has always done. You say the engine has been removed because you have a preconceived notion that certain traits should be selected for (eg. not being stupid) and when you see that those are not the traits associated with a higher differential rate of reproduction you dismiss it as not being evolution. Sometimes I wonder if anyone out there has actually bothered to try understanding evolution.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[nokilli]

Natural selection must not only mean that the possession of some combination of attributes confers both survival and the opportunity to procreate, the absence of those attributes must mean the opposite.

Beyond diseases that are passed through the genes, what such attributes exists for humans? Especially as it relates to brain development? I can't see it.

We're looking for some attribute of the human brain that permits one group of people to survive and reproduce, an attribute which those who are without die/don't have babies. Given civilization, what could that possibly be?

In other words, the lethality of stupidity is rapidly decreasing. I know we have to consider the scale of time here, but I'm assuming that for as long as human beings survive, so does civilization (and again assuming that such civilization doesn't get into eugenics or anything like that.)

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Tatarize]

The statement is pretty stupid. I mean sure we aren't evolving great spearmakers or hunters, because the focus of society has shifted. So long as people can die of genetic diseases or knock up multiple women because they are 'cute' or still alive (whereas other potential mates died)... evolution doesn't stop.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[looseBits]

Well, what trait is being selected for? In the US, the most determining factor in reproduction rates seem to be social status, not anything genetic (ugly people have children too.. that's where more ugly people come from). The lower you are on the social ladder, the more children you are likely to have.

Since people can live to reproductive ages and find a mate virtually regaurdless of health, it does seem that biological evolution has stopped for us, or at least it is no longer giving us better genetic tools for survival.

You are right, we are changing but unlike before we developed empathy for other humans, those changes aren't really directing us anywhere... almost everyone is equally fit, at least in regards to being able to procrerate.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[M0b1u5]

The engine is "adaptation to the environment through natural selection." Humans no longer adapt the the environment, we adapt the environment to our liking. We heat, and cool our homes so we can livein climates where unaided humans can't survive for more than a few hours.

We don't allow predators to kill us, because we killed them all, or are in the process of doing so.

We defeat the germs and genes which have performed selection duty on us for millions of years.

We don't allow climate to affect us (at least the smart ones don't!) by engineering crops which withstand insects and droughts, and we irrigate so we can store crops for future use.

All these things have removed a significant part of natural selection.

This is not to say the human evolution has stopped. Far from it. However, DNA has just about run its course, as the torch bearer of Evolution: for human brains to grow any more, human females would be saddled with hips which would prevent efficient walking. True, we might all decide that "We like big butts and we can not lie", but this can't bring the size of the human brain much larger than it already is.

No. DNA's ultimate expression is when it creates a creature which can control its own evolution, and create technologies which surpass evolution by factors of many thousands of percent.

The future of human evolution will be the passing of the torch from biological processes to electronic (or quantum) processes.

This process is underway right now. With cyborgs (albeit very basic ones) quite common now. In the next few decades, the line separating humans and technology will blur substantially.

Eventually, we will discover that we no longer require the biological parts of ourselves, as our own inventions (or those of the AIs we create) will surpass, in every way, all our biological parts.

Once Evolution has dispensed with biology, it will be free to increase in a Geometric Progression, eventually turning humans into the masters of the universe.

If we're lucky that is. ;)

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[LionKimbro]

Who is dying? Who is reproducing? What genes can help or hinder?

I have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.

It seems like you will die quickly if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. It seems like you will reproduce more if you have the misfortune of growing up in the wrong place. But location isn't encoded in your genes.

Perhaps interest in "religion," if such a thing can possibly be encoded in genes, could be selected for. But I have a hard time understanding how religiousness could be encoded into genes. Body strength is clear, but propensity to religion would require, I think, that the genetic code somehow be able to address specific abstract concepts. I have a hard time understanding how that could be, and without a lot of evidence showing how there could be such a causal chain, I would dismiss it.

If you live or die, it seems to be based more on politics, religion, and location. The same appears to be true for having children.

If the bad locations to be change faster than the cycle of having births and raising children (say, 30 years,)

Maybe there will be a super-horny-and-anti-condom gene. Again, I have a hard time understanding how visual recognition of a condom could be developed into a gene- and so quickly! (I understand condoms have existed for a few thousand years, but that doesn't seem long enough for genes and cells to be able to create condom recognizers.)

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Fragmented_Datagram]

...then, as Master's of the Universe, we'll experiment with creating life on other planets. We'll watch our new life forms develop and occasionally intervene. They'll worship us as Gods. They'll create great story books that tell others of our magnificent powers until one day when they too develop such powers... and the cycle repeats...

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[king-manic]

Well, what trait is being selected for? In the US, the most determining factor in reproduction rates seem to be social status, not anything genetic (ugly people have children too.. that's where more ugly people come from). The lower you are on the social ladder, the more children you are likely to have.

The flaw in yur thinking is that while some reproduce a lot, how many of those children also have children. Child mortality, teen violence, urban violence, disease and malnutrition affect the low income bracket mroe so then the high income bracket. IQ tend to correlate along these lines as well. There is a strong selecting factor on the bottom end of things. The low income people who reproduce must survive to reproductive age which means they have at least the minimial intelligence not to walk across a freeway at rush hour.

What is being selected for? the Average IQ has been steadily rising world wide for some time now. IQ doesn't completely correlate to intelligence but it's close, and it correlates to average income. Income tends to help fecundity. Income also helps your children survive to reproductive age too. So in general income is the selecting factor and indirectly intelligence.

Also evolution isn't just about the rate of reproduction it's also about how many of your progeny survive to have kids. Higher income/intelligence people tend to have children who also have children. This tends to favor smarter people and thus the gene pool in general is gettign smarter.

We are not all equally fit.

Races and Intelligence

If you look at that information, that digest. You'll notice that the ones in the top tend to be a lot better off then the rest, suffer far less infant mortality/accidental death/violent crime. Those are the selecting factors in our society at the moment.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[BlueBat]

Natural selection must not only mean that the possession of some combination of attributes confers both survival and the opportunity to procreate, the absence of those attributes must mean the opposite.

Beyond diseases that are passed through the genes, what such attributes exists for humans? Especially as it relates to brain development? I can't see it.

Well, there is driving. People that can drive better usually survive accidents or don't have them at all. Whereas people that drive poorly don't survive their accidents. Of course with computers coming along to help and even eventually do the driving this will change. But there are other factors.

People that OD on drugs or get into fatal accidents because of drugs are removing themselves from the gene pool. If they do have children, the children tend to be sickly or deformed, I think but am not sure of any studies. This has some effect on evolution, even if I'm wrong about the children.

How about when humans move into space? Stupid people will do something and they will die because space is so much less forgiving. Smart people will tend to survive and reproduce. Also, people above a certain IQ will be the first ones to go up as important skills will be needed in space. Then there is also the fact that some people will go to space and others wont and there will be a divergence in evolution at that point. Those that go to space will evolve differently than those that stay on the planet.


Just my $0.02.

BlueBat

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I know someone who's allergic to latex.

She has 3 kids at 22.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[AJWM]

Natural selection must not only mean that the possession of some combination of attributes confers both survival and the opportunity to procreate, the absence of those attributes must mean the opposite.

No, it's virtually never that clear cut. There'll be some attribute(s) that confer a marginal increase or decrease in the likelihood of individuals to reproduce, or not. It's not all or nothing. Over a hundred generations, though, even a 1% marginal difference adds up to a significant population shift.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[AJWM]

for human brains to grow any more, human females would be saddled with hips which would prevent efficient walking.

True (well, C-sections aside), but brains don't necessarily have to get bigger to get better. A number of studies (eg positron emission brain scans of people doing various mental activities) have shown that "more intelligent" individuals tend to have more efficient brains, i.e. they use less energy to solve the given problem. It turns out that indeed for some people, thinking really is hard work.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on! What about the pill? Is she alergic to that too?

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[thecampbeln]

Many believe that it's the improvement of nutrition across the human population that has lead to a rise in the global IQ (aka - the Flynn effect ). This is further substantiated (though not proven) by studies which point to children with certain nutritional deficiencies have long term negative effects on their IQ.

The flaw is not that some people reporduce more then others, it is that some people reproduce period.

"Invitro fertilization", When nature/god says 'no', but the doctor says 'yes, for a reasonable fee'.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[ozmanjusri]

The leading causes of death in the US between the ages of 14-40 (when you'd expect most reproductive opportunities) are;

1 Unintentional Injury
37,874

2 Suicide
13,032

3 Malignant Neoplasms
12,487

4 Homicide
11,839

5 Heart Disease
10,082

6 HIV
5,240

7 Diabetes Mellitus
1,842

8 Cerebro-vascular
1,802

9 Liver Disease
1,670

10 Congenital Anomalies
1,333

Source http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.htm l

so those are your selection pressures at work. Let's see if someone can draw a hypothesis out of that. Maybe predict the shape of future Americans...

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Hoch]

I have.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Anonymous Coward]

She sure as hell ain't allergic to cock in truck stop bathrooms!

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[ViperG]

Civilization has removed the engine through which drives the evolution of the species.

First of all I partially agree with this statement, but not fully for the statment is vague.

And to the parent of this thread, how can you not understand that our modern society has practicly reduced Natural Selection to almost nothing.

The process of Natural Selection isn't taking place because civilization now controls it's environments, for the most part.

But for the sake we are all on the same page, here is a refresher of Natural Selection, and it's purpose behind evolution.

Natural selection is a process by which biological populations are altered over time, as a result of the propagation of heritable traits that affect the capacity of individual organisms to survive and reproduce(Wikipeida)

Here are the keywords.

Hertiable Traits
Surive
Reproduce

To sum this up, basicly Natural Selection is the process in which the weak (DNA) dies, and allowes the better Strong(DNA) surive. The question is how does this process do this.

Through the habitat that the life form resides in.

The individual life form that is best suited in it's habitat, which logicly should live the longest life, will re-produce more than all the other individuals since it's existance time was the longest. Therefore, it's genes will be a majority in the next generation of the life forms. Like wise, the creatures that struggle the most in it's own environment die off quicker than the rest of the population. Because of this, they will have the least amount of time in which it can re-produce, so NATRUALLY, it's genes will not be as abundant as the genes of the better surviving individual. Eventually through time, only the best Hertiable Traits, make it to the top, as each generation becomes better at surviving. As random mutations occur in each generation, only the mutations that help in reproduction or it's survival get passed on, as genes that don't increase surival or re-production abilities, Natrually they won't be a dominate gene found in future generations, as the gene does nothing. When a mutation occurs in a individual, that makes it superior in surviving or reproduction, the individals overall time in which it can reproduce, or how much it can reproduce, increases, so it's genetic traits are found more often in future generations. So on and So on.

Here's an example. Lets say we have a creature with only 1 ear. So it can only hear good when it's ear is facing the sound. But then 1 is born with 2 ears, both that work. Well, he has a HUGE advantage over the rest of the group, as this new individual, will be able to pin point food or predators, much better than an individual with 1 ear. So he will most likely, live longer than any of the other creatures, and if this is the case, then that trait of the 2 ears will pass on, depending on how much this creature mates. So while the other creatures with 1 ear gets eaten or can't hear it's food, they usually only live 5 years. But the creature with 2 ears lives 10 years, therefor it can re-produce 5 years longer than one of it's same species, so it has way more offspring than a normal 1 ear creature. All those offpsring, well they inherited the trait, and they have 2 ears. Eventually the 2 eared creatures will fully replace the 1 eared creature because it can survive much better. (by evading it's loud predators better and hear it's food better)

So there you have it, Natural Selection. It only allows through time, the good genes to pass, the genes that are responsible for allowing the creature to best co-exist in it's habitat.

This is where society has destroyed that engine.
Bad genes are not being blocked at all, they are getting through the exact same about as the enhancing genes. If this is the case, then there will never be dominate traits that increase our ability to survive. As both bad genes and good genes get flushed out equally. If this is the case, and the fact that most mutations are deadly or they do

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[deaddrunk]

Judging by current trends, spherical.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[deaddrunk]

As long as I get to be Man at Arms I'm all for it.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[koekepeer]

this is what you get when a large enough following of the "intelligent design" camp scream from the top of their lungs that things should have a "purpose".

in addition, a large group of people who think they know what they are talking about when they talk about evolution, have no clue about the time involved and reason from the perspective of here and now. it takes quite a mental leap to see genetic change in the context of (very limited) historical information, and people tend to remember best what happened in their own (short) lifespan.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Decaff]

So there you have it, Natural Selection. It only allows through time, the good genes to pass, the genes that are responsible for allowing the creature to best co-exist in it's habitat.

No. It is far more complex that that. Evolution can be driven by things that have nothing at all to do with environment - look at things like the peacock's tain for example - something that is positively disadvantageous regarding environment. However, there are well-known selection mechanisms that allow even such 'bad' features to evolve - it is to do with competition within a species, not the environment.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[thebdj]

Of course no one has taken the time to understand evolution. The religious right are too busy forcing "intelligent design" into school systems and not bothering to read a book that doesn't begin with the letter B and rhyme with libel (coincidence, i think not!).

Really, if people spent more time reading books instead of continuing to selectively "burn" (while we may not physically be burning the anymore, the religious right is just "hiding" them) books maybe people would learn something. Remember if we listened to the church we would still be at the universe's center and the earth would still be flat. People need to read up on that term theory too, cause they really think that any crack pot can create a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Sorrry rambling again...

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[JohnFluxx]

The favourite (iirc) theory currently is that initially intelligence was favoured for survival (more likely to a capture your prey etc).

Then women that prefered men who were intelligent survived longer, and so that was favoured.

Then it just came down to intelligence just being a sexual preference, with dimensing 'actual' returns on intelligence. The majority of our intelligence is from women's sexual preference rather than from any advantages of surving in the wild.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Ihlosi]

In other words, the lethality of stupidity is rapidly decreasing.

No, no, no, that's why we have 300hp cars, guns, extreme sports, incomprehensible technical gizmos, electricity, drugs, etc ...

They all help to keep the lethality of stupidity at an acceptable level.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The problem is that there's a bigger safety net for stupid people when there is a welfare state. Also, smarter people seem to reproduce a lot less. Dumber people reproduce a lot more, it seems, and infant mortality doesn't seem to make up the difference.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Elrac]

In response to:

Perhaps interest in "religion," if such a thing can possibly be encoded in genes, could be selected for. But I have a hard time understanding how religiousness could be encoded into genes. Body strength is clear, but propensity to religion would require, I think, that the genetic code somehow be able to address specific abstract concepts. I have a hard time understanding how that could be, and without a lot of evidence showing how there could be such a causal chain, I would dismiss it.

I recently came across an article on the connection of genes and religion which says there seems to be at least some evidence that religion-related behavior could be at least partially influenced by genetic makeup.

Notice my careful wording here. This doesn't say there is a "God gene".

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Peter La Casse]

A more plausible hypothesis, I think, is that if a person has religious parents, they are more likely to be religious themselves.

Obviously there is a correlation between your genes and your parents' genes. If there's correlation between the religious beliefs of child and parents, then there's also correlation between religious beliefs and genetics.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[maxume]

What if we rephrase as:

        Civilization has drastically altered the criteria for natural
        selection.

To the point that it is worth arguing whether our fitness outside of that civilization is being increased by our evolution inside it. Some people think that it is worth thinking about...

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Peter La Casse]

No, it's virtually never that clear cut. There'll be some attribute(s) that confer a marginal increase or decrease in the likelihood of individuals to reproduce, or not. It's not all or nothing. Over a hundred generations, though, even a 1% marginal difference adds up to a significant population shift.

In practice, does any single genetic change give as high as a 1% improvement in one's chances of reproducing? (Clearly some small genetic changes can hurt one's chances of reproducing by more than 1%.)

I'm not an expert, but it's my understanding that current evolutionary theory says that changes come in clumps, and that there are occasionally periods of relatively rapid genetic change. I don't know if the reasons for this uneven rate of change are known, but given how much change has occurred over how few billions of years, attributing all life that we observe to gradual change over time is just not convincing to me.

(My understanding of the Intelligent Design position is that those periods of rapid genetic change are due to divine intervention. If you already believe in God, then that seems like a plausible hypothesis, but I don't know how you'd ever prove it. Then again, "scientific proof" isn't quite the same when you're talking about historical events like which species evolved into which other species. The best we can do is come up with theories that match our observations.)

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Bamafan77]

You say the engine has been removed because you have a preconceived notion that certain traits should be selected for (eg. not being stupid) and when you see that those are not the traits associated with a higher differential rate of reproduction you dismiss it as not being evolution. Sometimes I wonder if anyone out there has actually bothered to try understanding evolution.

Great point. People think that just because they believe their traits aren't being selected, the evolutioniary "system" has been artificially broken by modernity. It's one of those nice self serving fallacies that help us sleep at night.

Or maybe they're right. The point is, we know too little about evolution and how it applies to humans to assume anything.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.

There are plenty of congenital disorders that can prevent reproduction. And there are subtle effects that nobody has even studied. I have no kids and my desire to have them isn't too strong. Is that an inherited trait? Obviously not straightforwardly or I wouldn't be here. But even if it's 1% inherited it makes a difference but I doubt there are many experiments that could uncover it reliably. Similarly for people who desire to have large families.

In many parts of the world resistance to disease is a major deciding factor in whether or not you live. This may even be true in Western societies though the mortality rate from disease is much less here than elsewhere. Even before birth there are evolutionary forces at work.

Many babies aremiscarried. About 50% of the women I know have miscarried at some point in their lives, and that's just the ones I know about. So there's still selection pressure for getting babies to term.

There's also the simple fact that there is a differential rate of reproduction for different genes for effects that aren't directly causally linked to the genes. For example Westerners typically reproduce at a much lower rate than many other groups. This is obviously correlated with, though not necessarily caused by, many different gene groups. (There's no doubt that many of the genes carried by organisms today are a result of semi-accidental effects such as this.)

Additonally I'm sure that there's plenty of sexual selection going on in various groups as people choose mates that they find sexually attractive. They say, for example, that the population of California is better looking than the population of the rest of the US for various historical reasons. Even if this is apocryphal, it's not implausible that such effects are at work in many places vover the world.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Elrac]

Peter,

As you speak of "a more plausible hypothesis," you apparently didn't bother to read the article I linked to. As a public service, I'll summarize its contents:

When studying such things, scientists are well aware of the problem of distinguishing nurture from nature. Fortunately, there's a way to control for this, and that involves testing twins. To be precise, they tested with both identical and non-identical twins. Twins have the same parents and the same age. Identical twins additionally have identical genes.

Their finding was that the "religious" behavior of identical twins showed significantly more correlation than the religious behavior of non-identical twins. The only (apparent) difference being genetics, they reasoned that genetics seems to have an influence.

With reference to your point about the influence of parents, surely that is a powerful contributor. However, it was found that, once children move out of the parental home, they often strike out on spiritual paths different from that of their parents.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[Ihlosi]

have difficulty finding any source of death or reproduction that is meaningfully affected, today, in our human world, by genes.

There are plenty of genetic diseases, and a whole bunch of diseases you are more likely to get with the right (or wrong) set of genes. Various types of cancer, for example.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

'Problem'? That's a value judgement. We're talking about nature here and value judgements are irrelevant. If dumber people reproduce more then at least in the short term it appears that 'dumb' contributes to 'fitness' as defined by Darwinians.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[AJWM]

The effects of "any single genetic change" can range from none at all to far more significant than 1%. One example is the change in the haemoglobin molecule that causes (if expressed by two copies of the gene) sickle cell anemia. A single copy confers enough advantage in terms of malaria resistance that the gene survives in the population even though a double copy can be fatal.

One reason for periods of rapid change is if a whole lot of ecological niches suddenly open up, either because their previous occupants died off (eg dinosaurs) or because of geological changes, or the isolation of a few 'seed' species in an isolated set of niches (eg Galapagos Islands).

Of course "rapid" is relative. It took several million years from the extinction of the dinosaurs to produce significant diversity in mammalian species. (Ie, recognizable prototypes of the major mammalian lines.) In fact mammals had been around through the entire era of the dinosaurs, which outcompeted them for most niches.

Re:Hoist by your own petard

[LionKimbro]

Sure, sure, but: Do they kill you before you have children?

My understanding is that cancer kills people who are older.

Evolution ain't what it used to be

[msaver]

Ever since the invention of agriculture, humans quit evolving like the rest of the creatures on earth. The question is now is "who reproduces?" instead of "who lives through the night?"

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't apply to humans -- obesity kills a lot of people. You don't have to be fit (in any sense of the word) to survive. Who's reproducing more: smart people or idiots? I'd bet on the idiots (smart people think a little more about the implications of having [another] child). If the average intelligence of the human race is dropping (ever so slighly), how can we call that evolution?

Evolution seems to lead to diversity, and as a race humans are becoming (IMO) less and less diverse. The concept of evolution is intimately tied to diversity -- humans have quit evolving... we're done.

So a little variation here or there is natural... it's all statistics anyway. I guess any article that mentions evolution makes it on /. these days :/

What was selected?

[John Hawks]

One of my friends thinks a good candidate for selection would be avoidance of cities, since these were cholera-ridden population sinks for most of history. Maybe so.

Really the reason to think that cognition is involved is that these same genes were selected repeatedly in primate and human evolution:

Both genes underwent repeated adaptive subtitutions in the primate lineages leading to humans: these changes in Microcephalin were concentrated in the ancient hominoid ancestors of humans and chimpanzees; ASPM fixed a new adaptive substitution on average every 300,000 or so years since the human-chimpanzee common ancestor. Disease-causing alleles of both genes are associated with forms of microcephaly. The normal functions of neither have been characterized, although their effects in microcephaly would indicate that one important function is in early neural growth and differentiation. Thus, it is reasonable to think that they may have been involved in the evolution of brain size and structure in humans and other primates.

I suppose it's possible they make you dumber. But then further experiments should show one way or the other.

--John

Re:What was selected?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems silly. Sure they might be cholera ridden sinks, but from a gene's perspective, (virus, bacterial or human) it'd be heaven.

You're not going to get laid with (as many) people living off on your own in the countryside.

Your genes won't care if you die in 5 years so long as you performed the beast with two backs with a couple of dozen people in the interim.

Re:What was selected?

[bsiggers]

Hmm, dunno, I would imagine an 'avoidance of cities' trait might not do so well, as there are probably more avalable sex partners & better chances of reproduction where more people congregate. I would imagine there's a few trade-offs either way.

Re:What was selected?

[GreyPoopon]

Hmm, dunno, I would imagine an 'avoidance of cities' trait might not do so well, as there are probably more avalable sex partners & better chances of reproduction where more people congregate.

This might be true if, in general, people did not keep the number of partners with which they reproduce down to about one or two during their lifetime. Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to this, but in recent civilized history, people have mostly stuck to one or two families.

Re:What was selected?

[tgibbs]

One of my friends thinks a good candidate for selection would be avoidance of cities, since these were cholera-ridden population sinks for most of history.

In practice, however, all human populations show a high tendency to congregate in cities when given the opportunity to do so. So it suggests that the advantages to large groups outweigh the hazards. Remember, for a gene to propagate, it doesn't have to improve long-term survival, just reproductive success.

Re:What was selected?

[PakProtector]

Why the hell is this Modded funny? Did someone not understand that what the AC is saying is actually true? Why do you think it is that creatures such as Salmon die during reproduction, and other creatures, such as humans, will do rediculously dangerous and stupid things just to impress a mate?

The desire to disperse one's genes is the greatest drive there is.

If I had a gene that made me entirely unresistable to the ladies, but killed me when I hit 30, it would spread like wildfire -- genes only care about spreading themselves around as much as possible. What do you think 'junk' or 'non-coding' DNA is? Genes that were good at getting themselves copied.

Re:What was selected?

[operagost]

Junk DNA may also be structural.

The answer is simple, really.

[NeuroManson]

Despite various environmental influences, the brain has been developing amazing capabilities as of the last century and a half.

3/4 of most common mental illnesses, for example, have had their mirror images of genious appear at the same time. Case in point, the misnamed "Idiot Savant".

While a majority of autistic people with aspergers syndrome, ADHD, ADD, stuttering, dyslexia, et al, have had difficulty adjusting to the modern world, another portion have adjusted brilliantly.

For example, ADD/ADHD could be an adaptation to rapidly changing perceptions and environments. To those who do not have this, it's a bunch of kids who jump around and seem to incoherantly spot a million different things at a rate well over what they could. Thus, they're a "problem child" to be fixed with meds.

Aspergers syndrome is a much more discrete phase, where one's mind is coherant (similar to obsessive compulsive disorder), but can focus enough to be somewhere close to genious. A good case example is "Rockin'" Bill Gates (who demonstrates this routinely in his meetings as you all know, but in his youth was a decent programmer, as long as he didn't have to work beyond 2K code). Another example is Howard Hughes.

Stuttering/Tourettes is a case where someone has brilliant communications skills, as long as you don't have to actually listen to them talk.

Most of this stuff didn't happen overnight, but on the other hand, it may have occurred at a time when we weren't eager to light a torch and pyre.

Re:The answer is simple, really.

[Anonymous Coward]

The examples given are not examples of brain evolution. Many if not all of the examples you mentioned are socially contracted. For example, too much TV has a direct correlation with ADHD

Re:The answer is simple, really.

[oncebitten]

For example, ADD/ADHD could be an adaptation to rapidly changing perceptions and environments. To those who do not have this, it's a bunch of kids who jump around and seem to incoherantly spot a million different things at a rate well over what they could. Thus, they're a "problem child" to be fixed with meds.

No.

There have always been hyperactive kids from time immemorial.

ADD/ADHD is caused by the following factors:

1) parents who are unwilling/don't care enough to discipline their children (and therefore push the problem onto doctors/the school system), which is caused by:
a) children as fashion accessories ("it's the thing to do")
b) the "me" generation ("I just don't have time for my kids").
c) the breakdown of the 2 parent home resulting in overworked single parents who just can't/won't deal with the problem.
d) society's general acceptance of all of the above
2) big pharma, who are so willing to basically provide legal amphetamines/barbituates to control this "problem"
3) doctors, who only spend 15 minutes max on a patient, and therefore are so willing to prescribe said drugs
4) government (including local, ie the school system), which is all too happy to look away.

Re:The answer is simple, really.

[EvanTaylor]

Not all add/adhd children are misbehaved or lack discipline. But since you obviously have kids, have taken care of kids for extended periods of time, and know everything I am going to assume you are right.

And of course add/adhd is always treated with drugs and therapy. It's never just accepted as normal behavior, and of course add/adhd always results in misbehaved children who aren't paid enough attention to or disciplined or raised properly by their parents.

You are an idiot, don't breed.

Re:The answer is simple, really.

[oncebitten]

I might not have, but my mother has, and we were all "diagnosed" as adhd. Oh, and she also worked in special ed dealing with adhd kids.

There are some legitamate adhd kids, it's just that it's become over-diagnosed.

And, I have taken care of a kid (not my own) who was (guess what) all diagnosed with adhd. Amazing what a little attention and set boundaries did for him.

Proof that we are not evolving...

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality. The homosexual revolution came upon us. A lifestyle that does not reproduce, yet it has become very prominant in the human race. Since scientists think that homosexuality is genetic, we have an increased population of people who will not continue the human race. Sounds more like entropy than evolution.

Now this is not an attack on homosexuals, but rather some food for thought on the whole humans are still evolving idea. We can't possibly be evolving when we kill our offspring, don't produce offspring, kill ourselves (drugs, etc...), etc... How are these people surviving? If we were evolving, wouldn't homosexuals, abortionists, and drug users fade from our species?

Re:Proof that we are not evolving...

[Anonymous Coward]

Homosexuality has been around for ages. It has only become 'prominent' becuase the social forces that oppose it are being worn away.

Re:Proof that we are not evolving...

[anechoic]

my wife's boss and his partner just had a baby...they provided the sprem and a willing female provided the womb...voila! passing on genes and continuing the human race!
you really should get out more! :)

Re:Proof that we are not evolving...

[anechoic]

my wife's boss and his (male) partner just had a baby...they provided the sperm and a willing female provided the womb...voila! passing on genes and continuing the human race!
you really should get out more! :)

Will this result in evolution or branching?

[tji]

As others mentioned, half of the evolution process is missing.. there is no selection of better traits. Everyone lives, thrives, and reproduces regardless of their genetic adaptations (or quality).

So, we still have the genetic randomization going on, resulting in differences in humans. But, then what happens? All the strains of humans just keep going.

Does this result in the spectrum of humans spreading increasingly wider, so eventually subjects at two extremes barely resemble the same species?

Will any noticeable branching happen? In previous evolution, one group survived and thrived, replacing members without an adaptation. Now, since the others still survive, and the difference between the weak and strong won't result in a dramatic difference in results for either group. Probably not anything recognizable outside the normal differences between tall & short, thin & fat, smart & dumb.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[JoeBuck]

No; not everyone reproduces equally. For natural selection, the definition of "better" is that the fraction of the population that contains a given gene increases. It has nothing to do with smarter, bigger, stronger, or the like. And there are all kinds of oddball complications, like genes that help with survival if you have one copy, and that kill you if you have two (sickle-cell anemia is like that; if you have one sickle-cell gene you don't get the disease, but you are resistant to malaria). African people will soon evolve resistance to HIV, because of the massive infection rates among people of reproductive age. Those who are more resistant will be more likely to survive and have children. There are some indications that this is already starting to happen.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[Mudcathi]

As others mentioned, half of the evolution process is missing.. there is no selection of better traits. Everyone lives, thrives, and reproduces regardless of their genetic adaptations (or quality)

Ahem! What about people who refuse to wear seat belts? Who don't wear motorcycle helmets? Who smoke cigarettes? Who use meth? etc etc.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[Guppy06]

"Will any noticeable branching happen?"

My understanding may be flawed and dated (I Am Not a Biologist), but speciation isn't a particularly slow process. There's no "connect the dots" record of one species slowly devleoping into another, instead we have things remaining relatively constant for a long period of time, then something sudden happens (geologically speaking) that brings about a drastic change (geologically speaking) in the environment, triggering many new developments to thrive and die off rapidly (etc.) until a small number of clear winners comes out of the fray.

If we were in the middle of such an event, sure, we wouldn't notice in the course of a single lifespan, but over the course of recorded history we'd probalby have noticed something by now.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[king-manic]

As others mentioned, half of the evolution process is missing.. there is no selection of better traits. Everyone lives, thrives, and reproduces regardless of their genetic adaptations (or quality).


I've posted about this 6 times tonight, actually there are selective factors. Evolutuion trudges on.

Lower fatality does not equal lack of selection. It occurs, slowed a little but variation is great for long term survival. It means your successful and are more diverse. Diversity means you have a population has a higher chance of havign the "right gene" for a particular instance.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[StrawberryFrog]

Everyone lives, thrives, and reproduces regardless of their genetic adaptations (or quality).

Not true at all in the third world, and not completely true in the first world either. Eventually we'll breed for teenagers who look before crossing the road.

Will any noticeable branching happen?

The last century or three has seen the reversal of branching. Population groups that were seperate are now mixing, those that haven't been exterminated or marginalised by people of European descent.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[Aeternal]

Speciation is as slow or as 'fast' as it takes. But not as fast as to take place in recorded history. But yes, severe selection pressure due to some change in the environment could cause a species to change more quickly, or populations within a species to diversify. For humans even such a change as a lightening of skin colour for a population would take many thousands of years.

Speciation, the development of a new species from a concurrently existing species requires some isolation mechanism to prevent interbreeding-this could be geographical (Darwins Finches) or due to mating preferences (African Cichlids). A species can also change over time without introducing a new species. There is a bit of confusion being demonstrated generally in this topic about this.

Re:Will this result in evolution or branching?

[Shirloki]

Take Hurricane Katrina for example (Get them -1 mods ready!). There are currently 35,000 people missing and about 1600 dead accounted for. Let's assume that there are 5,000 dead, since that's a nice, round number and doesn't seem too far-fetched to me. That means that there are 5,000 fewer people who may later reproduce and spawn children that are more likely than others to habitate sites that are subject to cataclysmic weather. Evolution, folks! They were not selected.

who'da thunk it!?

[StromgBad]

duurrrr hurrrrr

genes controlling brain size?

[myc]

Julian Delphiki unavailable for comment.

Speaking of which (sorry to threadjack), anyone have any comments on the new Orson Scott Card "Bean" novel?

Mutants

[Anonymous Coward]

How long till the mutants attack.

selection

[cahiha]

The brain may still be evolving, but the direction it's evolving in depends not on available mutations, but on selection.

Welcome to the future of the human race.

Re:selection

[anechoic]

available mutations? mutations are random, mistakes, acceidental formations and are not drawn from an available pool of possibilities...
also, yes selection is an important part of the genetic algorithm but without crossover and mutations the process has nothing to select...so they all play an important role in the process of evolution...
peace

FSM

[siwelwerd]

Evolution? Bah. This is clearly the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Re:FSM

[Pendragn_tk]

May He touch us all with his Noodly Appendage.

Science or theology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

Humans have poorer knowledge of the mechanism of gravity than we have of the mechanisms behind evolution. Gravity is the theory which explains why things fall, why planets go around the Sun in mostly-elliptical orbits and why light bends around massive objects. Evolution is the theory which explains why populations are observed to change over time.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

In other words, it's "... just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." - William Dembski

Religious apologetics without a shred of science, or even information theory (Dembski does not publish papers on information theory, or any research at all for that matter).

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

And it explains, among other things:

1. The recession of remote galaxies (the Hubble constant);
2. The existence of the Cosmic Background Radiation;
3. The fluctuations in the CBR (specifically, this is explained by a refinement of the Big Bang theory known as "inflation");
4. The rather sharply-defined age limit of the oldest stars; and
5. The elemental composition of the interstellar medium.

That's a lot of data to explain from a few fundamental physical constants and just one event 13 billion years ago. What does your brand of creationism explain about why things are the way they are, instead of some other way? Divine whim? (Creationists tend to be very ignorant about the subject of their certainties. I'll bet that half of the above phenomena are complete news to you.)

Know what's funny? You aren't even smart enough to distinguish between high-energy physics (the field of science which studies phenomena of the character of the Big Bang) and evolution (which required the Big Bang, a couple rounds of stellar formation and supernovae to make heavy elements, then formation of the Earth, and then biogenesis before there was anything which could start to evolve). The whole thing is one undistinguished mish-mash in your mind, and you've been brainwashed into shoving it into a bin marked "WRONG". People like you crack me up.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

The probability of an event having happened after the event has happened is 1. Elementary Bayesian statistics.

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

Sorry, but the chemical elements are much better at making life-stuff than watch-parts are at making watches. They form sugars and even amino acids spontaneously in the cold of space, in flasks with electric sparks or ultraviolet light, and probably in many places we have never been able to look yet. Google "Miller-Urey" and start from there - fuck that, here's a link, I've saved you the trouble.

God made life. It is called a soul.

Then by that same principle God made your brain, but you're showing gross disrespect to Him by refusing to use it.

Looks like you've been systematically disinformed and propagandized. If you want to do something about it, you could do much worse than to go here and start reading. You'll find every one of your talking points listed here, and refuted.

It's all a lie!

[kjoonlee]

There's no such thing as evolution. Evidently, those "researchers" haven't been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Why the Human Brain Evolved:

[Visaris]

The human brain's evolution is driven most strongly by social competition. It's actually a leading theory that social competition was one of the primary causes of the human brain as we know it.

Suggested reading:

"Ecological dominence, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelegence", Flin, Geary, Ward.

"Machiavellian Intelegence", Richard Byrne.

"How Did Humans Evolve?", Richard Alexander.

"The Social Brain Hypothesis", Robin Dunbar

brain is degenerating

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the human brain is still evolving: Less intelligent people reproduce more offspring which means within only a couple hundreds of years humans will be significantly dumber then they are today. This is sad but true for many traits and actually a serious issue that needs to be addressed sooner or later from an ethical, biological, and social perspective.

The good news is that children conceived from gene banks are in average more intelligent because the genetic material is often being selected for intelligence and, hey, who doesn't want his child to be intelligent?!

Evolution is making our society dumber(er)?

[harry63]

I have often thought about this late at night when I can't sleep. Sometimes I believe our society is getting dumber because according to the "guidelines" of the survival of the fittest the less intelligent and successful people in our society are the ones reproducing (successful being represented by both income and advancement in field). I consider myself upper-middle class and my wife and I have no intentions of having kids. Our friends at the same SES also have no intentions of having kids and I have read many reports that show that this is a popular trend. It is the people of middle to lower class with lower IQs and less successful that are the ones that are having four and five children.

It often seems like the people who are really changing ou society are the ones that are deciding not to have kids.

oooh, FSM reference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wish I still had mod points for ya, but I'm out of 'em and reduced to posting AC in this thread.

One more thing...

[Dimensio]

Stop equivocating evolution with atheism. Evolution is not atheism. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest as much.

Re:One more thing...

[Minna Kirai]

Evolution is not atheism. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest as much

I think you mean "natural selection" instead of "evolution". NS is the kind of evolution which is opposed by Intelligent Design. Hypothetically, an invisible UFO could be flying around abducting organisms for genetic engineering. If that were true, then (guided) evolution would be happening but not natural selection.

That's why ID-supporters try to remember to say they're fighting against "Natural Selection" or "Darwinism", as opposed to merely evolution.

It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest as much

They're not exactly the same thing, but in practice they are highly related. While not all religions claim to explain the origin of life on earth, all of the most popular ones do. So, believing in NS contradicts the main theist creeds.

Furthermore, there is empirical measurement. Just check out this survey. Scroll down to the yellow chart and compare the first and last columns- see how predictably God goes down when Evolution goes up.

And this is news to who? Creationists?

[BRUTICUS]

And this is news to who? Creationists? Why would any species stop evolving?

I suppose it is interesting to have confirmed.

WE HAVE STOPPED EVOLUTION!

[adolfojp]

There can be no evolution without natural selection. We have tampered with natural selection.

Technology has given people with hereditary conditions like diabetes and nearsightedness the same chance to pass its genes to the next generation.

We are a weaker race because of it. Not that I am complaining ;-)

Cheers,
Adolfo

Re:WE HAVE STOPPED EVOLUTION!

[gg3po]

There can be no evolution without natural selection. We have tampered with natural selection.

It's been said before. Natural selection doesn't ever stop. The selection criteria simply change.

Technology has given people with hereditary conditions like diabetes and nearsightedness the same chance to pass its genes to the next generation.

We are a weaker race because of it...

Depends on your definition of "weaker". If the diabetic or nearsighted person that would have died off under the selection criteria of 500 years ago posseses attributes that allows him/her to contribute things to today's society that greatly outweigh the expense of the insulin or contact lenses consumed, how does that translate to a net loss? Technology and the new selection criteria have allowed this guy the ability to reproduce (3 children in this case). I don't think it would be very honest to write off his life as having the effect of weakening the race.

Cows.

[PengoNet]

I'd say having cows or goats around during winter in Europe, and not much else to get sustainance from, would be a pretty clear driving evolution force.

You can read (and write) all about Lactase persistence at Wikipedia.

Hello, 60,000 years

[QuantumG]

That's all the religious extremists need to hear about this story. You can't sensibly talk about evolution if you believe the earth is only 5000 years old.

Re:Hello, 60,000 years

[johnnyb]

Interestingly, young-earth creationists view change as much more rapid than evolutionists. The difference being that the primary driver of change is built-in, rather than haphazard (yes, natural selection is not haphazard, but it does not _produce the change_ -- mutations do that, and mutations _are_ haphazard).

Young-earth creationists view the originally "created kinds" as roughly at the family taxic level for most vertebrate groups.

I've often wondered...

[M3number3]

What exactly the role of modern medicine and civilization will eventually have on the overall evolution humans. Others have speculated about aspects of this, but my curiosity revolves around whether or not we (as a species) are preventing our own evolution by treating genetic diseases. Evolution is always triggered by a genetic change - with changes which make the species stronger carrying on and those which weaken the species eventually being eliminated. So what happens when a child is born with a genetic "defect" which, for lack of a better term, we simply don't understand. Do we treat that child, do we actively affect his/her ability to develop and thus prevent the eventual forking of the human species? This is somewhat thought provoking because I don't think any of us are smart enough to know the answer. The flip side of this argument, of course, is what to do when we are able to purposely engineer a superior branch of the human species. I'm not talking about changing eye or hair color, but rather our ability to create a "super human". Lastly, many folks believe that while human evolution may have slowed, it will likely make its presence known in a more significant way once we establish colonies in space. Imagine not the 1st or 2nd generations conceived and born in zero or reduced gravity (such as that in a space station, deep space craft, or even on Mars), but rather the 100th or even 1000th generation. Surely at some point these "humans" will have evovled traits which enhance their ability to survive and thrive in this new environment. Interesting stuff for sure.

Re:I've often wondered...

[jholzer]

I don't think it is our treating of genetic disorders. I think it is our overly compassionate actions disrupting human evolution. We don't let the weaker of our species die. We take care of them allowing them to reproduce. I don't think humans are evolving at all in the modern era. From my experience, the more intelligent the person, the less children then have, or none at all.

Compassion is a great trait the helped humans get to where we are. I wonder if we haven't become too compassionate as a species. Eventually leading to our downfall as a species. There are possibly too many dependent people, if too many of the produces die, the whole species might die during a global catastrophy. How many people can hunt/grow food to survive?

We can call it evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it just means a change in the genes represented in the population over time, not that the genes have to be "better" or something. In most cases it is hard to say what is better or worse... it depends on the environment. That's why it's called natural selection... genes are selected because they were more likey to produce offspring. It's not about producing some super-race of god-like beings.

Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteria

[rufusdufus]

It is highly likely that what you actually experienced was missing "friendly bacteria" or pro-biotics that help humans digest milk. Milk products usually contain a these in small amounts; this explains why you were able to digest milk again after consuming it for a while, you had built up good colonies in your digestive tract.
Lots of people have stomach, mouth, and fungus problems of various natures which they try to treat with symptoms with pepto-bismal and other over the counter drugs when they would do much better to go out an eat yogurt every day for a week. Yogurt is high in friendly bacteria and will fix many symptoms you may have had for years.
One big cause of losing your friendly bacteria is taking anti-biotics. Some people take anti-biotics and struggle with intestinal and fungus problems for years because their friendlies have been wiped out by the anti-biotics. Doctors rarely prescribe yogurt with anti-biotic, but next time ask your doctor if taking pro-biotics is a good idea, and he will probably say yes. Why they don't bring it up on thier own has always been a mystery to me.

For crying out loud! Think of the poor Democrats!

[n54]

Surely they have enough trouble as it is without the need to see their party relegated to obscurity by an onslaught of smarter individuals/voters!

/* yes this is a +5 Funny post - everyone should be able to laugh at this one no matter which political affiliation they have */

With All This Talk About Evolution Of The Brain

[MCTFB]

Did anyone stop to consider the mere possibility that the human brain's understanding of evolution is evolving?

But what's it evolving into?

[JourneyExpertApe]

The Daily Probe had a story about this a while ago. (Read the first headline.)

Evolving Brain

[kawabago]

Many politicians seem to be going the other way!

How do they know?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Two genes involved in determining the size of the human brain have undergone substantial evolution in the last 60,000 years...."

Whenever I read claims like this, I always wonder, "how do they know?". I'd have to question even if the claim were only 100 years. I have doubts that we have records of the genes in question for the last 100 years, and I'm fairly sure we haven't been watching these genes for the last 60,000 years. :)

I would assumed that any specific genetic data (aside from that which can be inferred from physical observations) would have been long lost to us. In this case, it seems one must be willing to make the somewhat undesirable claim that we can know that these two genes are the only two genes that control the size of the brain, and have always been the only two genes that control the size of the brain. I could accept that assumption were the claim 100 years, but 60,000 seems a bit much to take on faith.

It seems to me that this article boils down to "Change happened somewhere somehow!" and that doesn't seem particularly insightful. Anyone have more knowledge about how their claim can be observed and verified?

Right effect, but (probably) wrong explanation

[Saucepan]

Average IQ is indeed rising world wide but it's not at all clear that it's due to the world being "so complicated now it selects against those who can't cope." There are multiple competing theories explaining the Flynn Effect of which by far the most credible, IMO, is that the largest cause has been improved early childhood nutrition due to the spread of modern farming techniques.

Re:Right effect, but (probably) wrong explanation

[king-manic]

Average IQ is indeed rising world wide but it's not at all clear that it's due to the world being "so complicated now it selects against those who can't cope." There are multiple competing theories explaining the Flynn Effect of which by far the most credible, IMO, is that the largest cause has been improved early childhood nutrition due to the spread of modern farming techniques.

True enough, but the lack of a declining intelligence in the western world also support the fact that we're not getting dumber. We've had fair nutrition for about 5 generations now, IQ is still risin here. How about China, huge sampel size. IQ is also rising. Their agriculture has been fairly optimal for a long time.

Evolution

[MrArmyAnt]

If we are constantly evolving, which we are, to suit what we need to, that means we are getting more complicated. So the more complicated we get the more we try to learn, and that circle spends around and around. We already know the human brain is far more capable than anything else known on the planet. From Hitler's ability to get a country of logical people to side with such extremest views, to einstein who bent all the information we knew as science. We will always be ahead of where we seem to be.

Re:Since when is natural selection called evolutio

[Nasarius]

AC has it mostly right. Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. Micro/macroevolution and "speciation" is mostly a red herring promoted by creationists. Evolution is evolution, and it's very difficult to draw discrete lines between species.

In Other News...

[Anonymous Coward]

the surface of the Earth is still apparently being eroded by wind and rain. Scientists have found that 2-3 hills in their study are not as elevated as they were 60,000 years ago. News at eleven...

I believe you missed the point of the grandparent

[thecampbeln]

For about the last 100 years(-ish, in the western world at least), the engine that drives the evolutionary process in the human population has been (all but) removed by way of social programs, improved medical techniques, invitro fertilization (natural selection... anyone?), you name it. That's not to say I'm advocating doing away with these things, but anything that allows for the production of offspring by individuals that otherwise would not have had the ability or made it to the age to reproduce *naturally*, is "dumbing down" our collective human gene pool.

If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date", so to speak. How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole? By definition, natural selection has been removed and therefore evolution has ceased. Sure, the population is "evolving" (read: reproducing) but with a near 100% reproduction rate amongst those individuals who *choose* to reproduce (again, no evolution here), it is not "evolving" in the Darwinian sense. Only those with severe medical or physical problems are no longer "able" to reproduce, but again this does not evolution make (IMHO).

Re:Evidence of evolution in a generation's ability

[Pillowthink]

The time frame isn't quite right for that. Nurture, in a somewhat unintended, but true sense. Nature takes more time. The Nature vs. Nurture argument is one of generationally redundant traits, usually. I may be wrong, but I think that with creatures of our generational rates we need more time to evolve [nature] superior conceptual capacities. There wasn't enough time for it to effect breeding and so not enough time to effect evolutionary paths.

Evolution predicts the creationists will win

[Fractal Dice]

There are only three things evolution needs to happen: [1] information which is copied from one generation to the next (genes), [2] different numbers of offspring that survive to reproduce (1 child vs 10) and [3] some level of causation between the information and that difference in numbers of offspring.

Thus, there is strong selective pressure in favour of brains succeptable to philosophies that avoid birth control.

(I'm not sure if I write that as a joke or a sincere prediction)

Miserable Failure

[kf6auf]

I think that the evolution of the human brain is clearly a Miserable Failure.

Hmmmm

[Spy der Mann]

Well, we definitely need a gene to reject peer pressure and slackness regarding important decisions (i.e. voting). Because the stupid are causing MANY, MANY people to die today. Just look at New Orleans.

Evolution Has Stopped

[midnightblaze]

Evolution in the traditional sense has stopped for humans. Before, the environment had a huge impact in what genes got selected to propagate and which failed. We are the first species to be able to directly manipulate the environment, and each other, in order to prolong survival. Genetic traits, like blindness, are allowed to flourish to an extent where before, they would have died out. We can change the environment, by building ramps and audible street lights, so blind people can lead productive lives.

Re:Evolution Has Stopped

[Ziviyr]

Your title says evolution stopped.

Your message says evolution is briefly changing direction.

Maybe you should work for a newspaper?

Bah! Humbug!

[Conanymous Award]

These stupid scientists are still trying to sell that evolution "science" to the public?!? It's amazing how they just can't accept the TRUTH! Ask any REAL scientist and he will attest that the World and life (including mountains, trees and a midget) were created by the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster through the touch of His Noodly Appendage. We must make it so the Truth is heard. Teach the controversy!!

It's kind of hard...

[glitch23]

for an object to continue to do something when it never even started to perform the action to begin with. Our brain is the same now as it always has been. If natural selection/evolution were plausible then humans would be the only species on this planet. There would be the need for only 1 species at a time to exist which would be the fittest one. As it stands, there are obviously more than just humans that exist on this planet so therefore natural selection is not at work since many forms of intelligence can exist without the lesser ones dying out.

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[eh2o]

general practice doctors (i.e. non-specialists) are absurdly overworked... if they had a minute to spare (seriously) they might mention pro-biotics.

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[line.at.infinity]

Why would bacteria have anything to do with the human production of lactase enzymes or lack thereof?

Eh?

[tcampb01]

There is still a differential rate of reproduction between different groups and so natural selection is carrying on exactly like it has always done.

No... that's not correct. The difference here is that we humans tamper with 'evolution' in unnatural ways. Not just us -- but everything we domesticate. This includes crops, livestock, even the family pet. Bulldogs are unlikely to reproduce successfully on their own because they need c-section births. If "natural" selection were at work, the breed would be extinct. How is the 'natural' selection process carrying on exactly as it has always done in this case?

Bulldogs are one example, but we do it with a lot more than the family pet. We have crops that don't reproduce at all -- yet these crops *still* exist! Natural selection? I think not!

I suppose it's politically easier to argue about how it applies to pets than it is to argue about how it applies to people. I think you'll find that differences in the reproduction between different groups of people is less to do with genetics and more to do with social and/or political environments. There may be differences, but you can't pin these differences on nature.

Natural selection does not necessarily apply equal pressure on each generation. Many generations may have it easy, allowing genetic variations to propogate for some time until a more severe event occurs (e.g. a plague) that genetically attacks our species. Perhaps only a minority of us are fortunate enough to have the genetic makeup to survive. Think of it as a rubber-band stretching -- allowing us to beat natural selection for only so long before the rubber band snaps us back.

But for now, medical science is frequently beating nature. 'Natural' selection may not be neutralized to the point of having zero impact, but it sure has been reduced to a much less significant factor than it was in years past.

I read a short scifi story a long time ago...

[gregm]

I don't remember the author but I do remember the storyline. The story was set in the far-flung future (probably 2001 ish).

Due to the trend of intelligent hardworking people having fewer offspring than stereotypical trailer trash who were breeding like rabbits, there were only a handful of people left on the planet intelligent enough to keep things running.

This small group of intelligent people were busting their collective asses to make sure the idiots got fed and they were getting pretty tired of it and couldn't keep up. So they decided they'd have to cull the heard a bit.

They started running commercials (during I Love Lucy re-runs which were all the rage in the trailer parks) showing happy people vacationing on Venus. Eventually they started a lottery for free rides to Venus in a series of "rocket ships". Turns out the rocket ships were simply ovens and anyone stupid enough to try to vacation on Venus was incinerated.

This scenario seems really cold and hard but it also seems almost inevitable to me. I expect that more subtle measures will be taken before things get as bad as in that story though.

Anyone know what I'm talking about? Anyone remember the author's name or title of that story?

Evolution requires survival of the fittest.... Once you get to the point when you stop dying before you procreate, you are simply randomly mutating.

G

Re:I read a short scifi story a long time ago...

[cruachan]

The Marching Morons, by CM Kornbluth

Obl.

[someguyfromdenmark]

Knock it up another notch! BAM!

No kidding...

[Hosiah]

I had a suspicion that the human brain was still evolving the whole time...when I noticed that it was obviously considered by nature to be optional equipment on some people.

But seriously, we have room to grow for a reason that we never had before: Caesarean births. Now that we have the technology, the circumference of the human skull is no longer constrained to the diameter of the birth canal. Note how earlier people valued wide-hipped women for their child-producing ability, and how today, popular culture values only women with skeletal stork's bodies...a subconcious acknowledgement that natural birth is no longer a factor in evolutionary development.

Re:No kidding...

[meta-monkey]

Do not confuse popular culture with actual culture. That maybe true in hollywood, but in the rest of America, or the world....not so much.

Re:No kidding...

[Hosiah]

Do not confuse popular culture with actual culture.

No, I don't. Although I *can* see media from other countries and cultures, and I *have* seen that bag-o-sticks famine-victim models have some popularity outside the US as well.

Re:No kidding...

[Hosiah]

Parent is overrated.

Versus "Genetic counseling"...

[Velox_SwiftFox]

It might be good to distinguish between trying to breed humans towards a certain form, and attempting to prevent a particularly troublesome genetic trait from being passed on. Is it eugenics for a government to subsidize a genetic counseling service that would allow people to know if they are about to marry someone else with the same recessive gene? Does it matter if the gene is thought to be beneficial or harmful, or if the harm is "kid likely to have 5 points lower IQ" versus "kid likely to die very early because he needs a working copy of the gene to make an enzyme his body can't do without"?

Re:Versus "Genetic counseling"...

[Skreems]

There was a researcher a couple years back who managed to triple the lifespan of fruit flies in about 20 generations by preventing them from breeding until halfway through their life cycle. The explanation was something along the lines of, age-related diseases, the equivalents of alzheimers and cancer in humans, would tend to kill off the more susceptible individuals before they had a chance to breed. The remaining ones were resistant to old age, basically.

Something about your post reminded me of that. We could pursue a eugenics program to basically stave off death, and it wouldn't even involve preventing anybody from having children based on some politically arguable traits such as IQ or hair color or whatever.

kill all the stupid people ?

[corporatewhore]

let's face it - evolution and compassion work in opposite directions.
If the weak survive they are peeing in the gene pool, yet they are also a crucial part of the higher ideals we are capable of postulating (elaboration required ? or do you get it ?)....

what if we just killed and ate the weaker, dumber, and fatter ? where to draw the line that we like to think seperates us from animals with shoes ????

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[rufusdufus]

First to be clear, pro-biotics help digest milk, I did not say anything about lactase; his description fit my diagnosis better than sudden loss/regain of lactose tolerance.

Next, as to the question of why bacteria matter, the answer is co-evolution. Yogurt, one of the first milk products used by humans, is essentially a bacteria colony. It just so happens that those bacteria digest milk, and that process helps humans digest milk. If those bacteria didnt have this effect, milk would never have become a human food source in the first place. [It is important to note that milk consumption is fairly recent in human history, probly because proper handling which allowed the 'good' bacteria to live while the 'bad' bacteria was avoided required some special cultural circumstances.]

Question

[Jesus IS the Devil]

So does this mean that in a few generations, /. will be a graveyard after all the virgins grow old and die?

Only the stupid people are breeding

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone once said that in a song... it must be true...

I hope I haven't upset any nerds with that.. sorry.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[David Off]

> Only those with severe medical or physical problems are no longer "able" to reproduce

not forgetting /. readers of course :-)

Wow ... Intelligent Design?

[joelsanda]

The discovery adds further weight to the view that human evolution is still a work in progres...

Does this mean the brain is intelligently designing itself?

Imagine that! Kansas preaches with the Bible in one hand and On the Origins of Species in the other!

Already happening

[biraneto2]

We are branching. I really think if evolution occured in such a way to make us look so much different from each other (even if we are still human beings) then it's very difficult to hope our brain or even other physical aspects evolved to be the same. We can even go back to that very controversial subject.

Evolution never sleeps

[Gorimek]

Only if every human born produces exactly as many offspring as all the others will evolultion stop. And clearly that is not the case. Some people have lots of kids, some have none. And much of the reason is genetical.

As an example, males who manage to sleep with lots of careless women can easily produce hundreds of kids. Look for more of those kind of genes in the future.

Re:Evolution never sleeps

[Profound]

Exactly, evolution favours careless women who get into trouble.

On this topic I have a theory that explains why women (on average) can only handle half as much alcohol as men. Over millenia of wild parties, women with weak livers became drunk earlier, then were subsequently knocked-up and produced another generation of bad girls.

If this kind of selective pressure continues, I can only imagine the wild times that await the men of the future!

intelligence?

[maxpublic]

While intelligent people *might* have some small economic advantage over the less intelligent in modern society (which obviously doesn't apply to vast tracts of the world) it's also clear that this advantage doesn't translate into having more children, or having more children survive to reproduce. It doesn't matter for shit if your awesome intellect (and matching ego) garner you $500k a year if you only have one or two kids, while the Jones down the street who need food stamps to feed their family have five or six kids. The Jones have a clear advantage in terms of passing their genes along to the population as a whole, regardless of what kind of car you drive or how many tech toys you manage to accumulate.

I also don't see how intelligence could possibly trump genes for improved communication and social interaction. There's no proven link between these characteristics and intelligence, and certainly from an anecdotal standpoint the ability to successfully interact socially and communicate clearly with other human beings isn't tied to intellect. There's a reason why the stereotypical geek or genius is thought to be socially inept, simply because it's so often true. Exceptions abound, of course, but the stereotype is rooted solidly in reality. Geeks, on the whole, *do not* do as well with the chicks, and aren't passing along their seed willy-nilly as much as those who can talk a good game. Evolution doesn't care what's being passed along, only the frequency at which it's being passed along - and I don't see the geek set (or any group possessed of greater intellect) setting the breeding bar any time in the near future. Or the far future, for that matter.

The brain might still be evolving (and I'd be highly surprised if humans weren't still evolving) but how exactly does that relate to improved intelligence? It seems to me that the characteristic more likely to be selected wouldn't be intelligence but the ability to successfully interact with individuals and groups, and that doesn't necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with intelligence. And frankly, I think that if it comes down to a choice between these two things better social interaction and communication is far more important to the survival of the species as a whole than brains are any day of the week.

Max

Re:intelligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

in a constantly changing enviorment there is no such thing as intelegence.The future is not 100% predictable because it is made of infinate variables that are always changing .This world is full of life ,each creature is part of a complex system .There is no place in the universe that is predictable.Evolution is a tool used to move all life forward on this planet at a safe pace.It relies on remembering past successes and falures.No movements are waisted.The wealthy are only normal people with a advanced ability to lie and cheat.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[LittleBigLui]

the engine that drives the evolutionary process in the human population has been (all but) removed by way of social programs, improved medical techniques, invitro fertilization (natural selection... anyone?), you name it

No. Those things changed what would be regarded as "fitness" in that context but didn't somehow magically suspend evolution.

If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date"

If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to survive attacks by wild animals, and yet throwing rocks and waving burning sticks at those animals have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date".

How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole?

Because there's no need for perfect physical health anymore? Seriously, how long would have Stephen Hawking survived in the - say - fifteenth century? Are you sure that mankind would be better off without him?

Seriously, just because you disagree with the laws of nature about what excatly "fitness" means doesn't make nature's definition wrong and yours right. "Fitness" means adaption to the environment, and the environment has changed, as has "fitness".

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

man i cant beleive they found a 60,000 year old brain to back this up. thats really somthing

42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evolution

[DrSkwid]

Life on Earth has :

Existed in its present form since the dawn of time : 42%
Evolved over time : 48%
        Guided by a supremem being : 18%
        Guided by natural selection : 26%
        Don't know : 4%
Don't know : 10%

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Repor tID=254

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International among a nationwide sample of 2,000 adults, 18 years of age or older, from July 7-17, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. For results based on Form 1 (N=1,000) or Form 2 (N=1,000) only, the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Maybe there is some terminology error

[archmitis]

Adaptation and survival fittest changes human immune system, better nutrition help grow taller....but genes also play a part....it's not like if drinking lots milk...than everybody can grow like Michael Jordan..... Evolution...the theory of it portrays several elements of errors. First, if someone say...yeah human are from monkeys....there is no known intermediate fossil.....maybe ape look alike kinda fossil..but what makes human and apes so distinguish from each other today? Even if mutation occors, there should be several combinations. One such as ape has learning, speaking ability like human and human has ape like behavior. Although several resemblism can be brought together, but there is nothing shows the intermix of the two. Second, most of the mutation that alter gene would only weaken the species of themselves. Fictional spiderman and several others remain fictional. no know facts today that shows mutated animal or human has special dominant gene in today's society....they either lack a leg, an arm or other 'defects' ..... steroid isn't part of natural selection and so called evolution. Environment shapes and culture different genes to be dominant....people live in labor intense world might have better genes for physical...no racism involved...but quite a few African American are very atheletic....although some white male and female are very well build, too....due to individual genes... That is why i propose the error imbeded in the scientific evaluation....along with another article...that shows scientific publication are not necessary 'facts' but they are ideas being formed to speculate the possibilities of their assumption...and thus experiement is conducted. However, one important fact still remains....if you have your hypothesis for the experiment, bias is easily formed,...since we like to have result that match with our hypothesis...which we would use many methods to match that... just Me.....humble opinion

Consider a few other options

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

It's not "survival of the fittest" anymore - it's "reproduction of the fittest". Consider the man who "loves'em and leaves'em" - for a few hundred women a year. Chances are those genes are being reproduced far more than the average man.

Social skills are at least partially genetic, including the ability to predict and manipulate people. These skills are affected by brain structure and chemistry, so to say the brain is an exception to evolution is almost certainly false.

Of *course* there are stupid people breeding. There are still people born with tails too, but you don't consider that to be a trait of a normal human. On the whole, I suspect that truly stupid (not just poor or underprivileged) do not reproduce as much - or if they do their children are also less likely to survive (which is the same thing to the genes). That's how evolution works.

Is eyesight degrading?

[grahamsz]

I've often wondered if eye sight has started to degrade. In the hunter-gatherer days, surely good eyesight would have been required to provide for your family.

As such i'd imagine that those with excellent eyesight would reproduce more.

However, with corrective lenses, poor eyesight is no longer the hinderance it was, and i'm sure that those with poor eyesight reproduce at the same rate as everyone else.

Just a thought...

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[kg4czo]

Right, but as we all know, about 75% of all statistics are bunk.

Anyway, who cares what people believe? It's what's been proven that counts. There are a lot of facts people tend to refute and ignore because they don't believe it. Simple belief or dis-belief doesn't mean squat. Just because you don't believe something doesn't make it any less true.

Yes, but obviously you've forgot one thing...

[msimm]

The Darwin Awards.

They really still do weed themselves out (just not always the ones *you'd* like). :)

I Know MY Brain Is Still "Evolving"

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not sure about the rest of you morons.

I take that back.

I AM sure about the rest of you morons.

A Long-Term Investment?

[NBarnes]

Given how radically the human environment has changed in the last 60k years and how radically the selection pressures have changed, I assume that 'evolution' (an imprecise term at best in context) is still a major and rapid force on the human genome.

On the other hand, the glacial speeds at which 'evolution' works on our gene pool are certainly overwhelmed by the rate at which we are changing and rechanging our environment. Evolution can't change us nearly as fast as we can change ourselves.

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[Lord Kano]

My problem was definately about a lack of lactase. I was not planning on going into the disgusting details, but perhaps it'll make my situation clearer.

Lactose has a very distinctive smell. When I couldn't digest milk, it would run straight through me and I'd have to get rid of all the undigested milk. The smell of the lactose was very much evident.

I was not producing lactase. If I took a lactase pill or drank lactose free milk I had no problems.

Eventually I got to the point where I didn't need to do either of those things anymore.

LK

I agree

[Ogemaniac]

You are absolutely right...smart people are not breeding enough in the first world. Birthrates are now below replacement levels in every advanced country, with the US being in the least-bad position. In other nations, such as Japan, the lack of children is becoming a serious political issue. It will eventually be a problem in the US as well.

In order to sustain our population (which seems a reasonable target) we need to have about 2.1 children per woman. In the US, lower class people are doing just about that. It is the top half of the income distribution that is failing to do its duty by replacing itself in the next generation.

I have seen some estimates that we could lose as much as one point of IQ per generation due to differential numbers of children and mother's age at birth - a pretty scary thought if you ask me.

Unless some amazing new technology comes to save the day, in the next few years we are seriously going to have to consider more government manipulation of birthrates, or our society and culture could disappear.

Re:I agree

[Kafka_Canada]

I think having some incompetent asshole from the government forcing you to have children counts as our society and culture disappearing.

Re:I agree

[radtea]

You are absolutely right...smart people are not breeding enough in the first world. Birthrates are now below replacement levels in every advanced country...

Sorry, you've dropped a few sentences or something in editing. Your first sentence is about intelligent individuals. Your second is about nations with the rule of law, stable governments, and effective markets and high standards of living due to technology and history.

These have nothing to do with each other, except that the people living in rich countries, being richer, have better access to education and so may appear "smarter" to the stupid.

If anything, however, people in poor countries are "smarter" than people in rich countries. A person living in poor country is likely to have to actually know how to do something useful to survive, whereas a person in a rich country can just get a job in retail, or sell insurance, or become a lawyer.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me more and more (anyone seen The End Of Suburbia, for example?) that we are likely facing some serious lifestyle changes in the near to middistant future... the white collar workers, say tech workers, who have what are almost imaginary jobs and not only don't have a clue how to do anything without modern society and modern appliances to assist them, not to mention are very often quite out of shape... they won't prepare themselves, and when the environment they live in changes drastically, they will be severely selected against. The stupid amongst the lower class won't be much better adjusted either, except that many are used to surviving without having. Those who will survive on both of those levels will be the ones who've had the intelligence and foresight to prepare themselves and acquire some real survival skills.

I have far more faith that natural selection is waiting to drop the guillotine than that we're going to forever dodge the bullet until we can manipulate our own genes successfully and start to apply our idiot prejudices to our own DNA, most likely permanently fscking our species over. So... I'm continuing to specialize in my knowledge as it allows me adaptation to this society, but at the same time doing everything to generalize my skills at basic levels. Could you grow/catch your own food? Could you build successful shelter? What if you had to?

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

To sustain a population for each person a child needs to be born. it takes 2 to make kids, so 2 kids per woman will suffice. I'm not sure how you would have 2.1 kids anyway, but its probably because i'm one of those stupid people.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sorry, but there is NO correlation between my mother's age and my intelligence. It's just not true. If you think otherwise, come talk to me or any one of the other people like me who's mother had them really early in life. Just because she was young doesn't mean anything about me, and it definitely does not mean that i am not intelligent.
Re-think that, or re-phrase it if you meant something else.

Re:I agree

[Ihlosi]

To sustain a population for each person a child needs to be born. it takes 2 to make kids, so 2 kids per woman will suffice.

2 kids per female is a sure way to extinction, since the ratio between males and females at birth is 501 : 499.

Also, it has to be ensured that every femal born reaches adulthood and also has 2 kids. (Which cannot be ensured, period). Therefore, the average number of children per female must exceed 2.0.

I'm not sure how you would have 2.1 kids anyway, but its probably because i'm one of those stupid people.

It has more to do with knowing the meaning of "average".

Re:I agree

[mcb]

You're looking at it backwards, I think. Mothers who have kids LATER in life result in children with lower IQs. I'm not sure what the gp was talking about, but Down syndrome could account for the differences he's describing. Did you know that a child born to a 42 year old woman has a 1 in 60 chance of having down syndrome? By age 49, there's a 1 in 12 chance. Under age 30, there's only a 1 in 1,000 chance. (http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/downsy ndrome/down.htm)

Re:I agree

[shokk]

Interpretation:
Geeks, work harder at getting that chick who works at the front desk to even notice you! You're killing our civilization! Maybe this is WoW's fault.

Re:I agree

[CFTM]

This could be considered somewhat pedantic but we will not "lose as much as one point of IQ per generation" because 100 = average. Moreover, about every decade they have to redo the IQ tests because there tends to be a shift of a positive 10 points. If you take an IQ test from the 50's you will score higher than one today; now if you want to argue that scores on either types of intelligence tests will decrease [such as the one that I think is called the raven test although I can't seem to wiki it...I've heard it's more indicative of overall intelligence and it's not some "seven kinds of intelligence" mobojumbo, it just relies less on multiple choice and more on overall cognative ability...at least that's the impression I have been given but I can't find any goddamn material on it, sorry] that's fine, I can't substantiate for or against your claim.

Also, be very careful making claims regarding a correlation between rich-poor and stupid-smart. My father grew up poor but is probably one of the smartest people I've ever met, subsequently I didn't grow up under the same conditions. I had the priviledge of going to school with all those rich people and let me tell you it's just like any other slice of a population; some are smart some are stupid and most are average.

Re:I agree

[Vinnie_333]

Well, I plan on doing my part this weekend. I'm gonna knock up as many women as I can find. Of course, just reading /. does dramatically lower my odds of being succesful but ... fight the good fight, eh.

Re:I agree

[master_p]

Maybe that is a natural phenomenon with advanced civilisations: when they reach a level where birth of children is not necessary, due to people having other priorities, then these civilisations die and new civilisations come in their place.

Re:I agree

[ChrisMaple]

Smart people in poor countries are smart enough to leave.

Re:I agree

[ChrisMaple]

You have just claimed that in 1950's terms, the average IQ today is 150: genius range. Hah.

Re:I agree

[mfrank]

It's also pretty much established that the older a man is when he fathers a child, the more likely that child is going to be schizophrenic.

Re:I agree

[CFTM]

It's known as the flynn effect. Which causes a shift of one standard deviation per generation; suppose it depends on exactly how long a generation is considered.

Re:I agree

[Marc2k]

but its probably because i'm one of those stupid people.

Yep. Actually, you're just trolling that's cool, I'll school you anyway. The one-tenth is moderately arbitrary, and I'd call shenanigans that it could actually be that low..basically, it's accounting for those individuals that will inevitably die before reproducing. The .1 suggests that almost everyone in the population will reproduce (and have about 2 kids, on average), as well. Some may have less, but then some may have more, balancing it to maybe 2.1.

Re:I agree

[Xentor]

A valid point, but on the other hand, what are the statistics on children born to 16-year-old mothers?

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right...smart people are not breeding enough in the first world.

Argh. This kind of talk makes me crazy.

The set of children of downtrodden third world parents contains the same 1% of kids with genius-level intelligence as does the set of children of privileged first-world parents. And the set of children of poor parents contains the same 20% of kids with gifted-level intelligence ... and so on. The difference between the two groups is NOT that they produce differently-intelligent groups of babies, it's that POVERTY MAKES PEOPLE STUPID once they have to live in it for a while. So even though they start out the same, fewer of the smart poor kids RETAIN their native potential into adulthood.

What you can do then as a "smart" privileged person whether you breed or not is make the world a better place. Work on your revolutionary open-source widget or whatever you do, so that the next generation of poor kids don't get beaten down. And you know what? No matter who their parents were, as long as they don't get beaten down they'll be able to step into your place when their time comes.

I don't believe IQ tests are reliable for anything, but mine has tested at 160. I only say this, anonymously, because ... let's just say that nobody who thought like the original post would have encouraged my parents to have kids.

Re:I agree

[glitchvern]

Birthrates are now below replacement levels in every advanced country, with the US being in the least-bad position.

This isn't true. The US has population growth without immigration and the children immigrants have when they come here.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[csjavi]

Sure, the population is "evolving" (read: reproducing) but with a near 100% reproduction rate amongst those individuals who *choose* to reproduce (again, no evolution here), it is not "evolving" in the Darwinian sense.

The Origin of Species isn't about evolution. It's about evolution by natural selection. There is a difference. The human species will continue to evolve even if there wasn't natural selection.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded). If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking). And yes, when nearly everyone who chooses to procreate can, evolution has been "magically suspend[ed]" (again IMHO).

As for Stephen Hawking and the like, as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled should be clubbed on the head.

I only read the headline but I just can't resist..

[kjots]

kjots says: Duh!

genotype - phenotype

[koekepeer]

they are not sure about anything. all right, there is a higher frequency of occurance of a certain allele and the size of the brain. but i think it's highly speculative - on the verge of stupid even - to correlate this to "smartness", as some here on /. like to do.

a *lot* of work needs to be done before anyone can make any sense about the actual effect of these mutations on human behaviour. which is of course why this information is being made public - to get some funding. not to feed the overly active imagination of /. visitors, although that's an amusing side-effect ;-)

Re:genotype - phenotype

[Jebediah_Mourn]

Consider: human brain is a product of human evolution
Consciousness is a product of our brains. Therefore conciousness is a trait. Therfore our actions and behaviors and technologies and all the changes we have brought about are a trait (many species build homes, wash food, and otherwise utilize technologies to improve their living conditions and therefore their survival). The trait that allows fo cooperative behaviour, utilization of tools, the building of structures, the formation of language, the tendency to render concretes into abstracts, etc etc etc are, since they have made us the dominant form of life with the exception of a few virii and bacteria, are by definition competitive traits. Nature has no blueprint by which is has preordained the shapes and behaviors that life comes up with to compete, there is no cheating or illegal behavior. We won, simple as that, and the only real problems we have right now are the fact that some of what we used to win is hurting us too. We will deal with that.

Social behavior is as well a trait, and certain social activities are more likely to tend towards survival and reproduction. Also, you must realize that if a "athlete" or "model" is stupid they are more likely to engage in behavior that destroys their genes, statistically. The ODs and car wrecks and fast living catches up with a lot of them. And if they are smart, and pretty, and popular, etc then they are more likely to reproduce, which is as it should be (since that is how it is).

Once must also consider that, since we are social organisms, our social ideas, systems of thought and beliefs, aesthetics, pretty much all of it, are undergoing selection through us, through our interaction. Some people call these memes, though I don't understand why the word "memes" is better than "ideas". Ideas like "the world is flat" and "there are fairies" have for the most part died out, while the ideas "2+2=4" and "if I cook the food first I don't get sick and die nearly so much" are very popular. Thus, also, do worldviews change and compete, with "the King is the land and all must serve the king" falling sharply behind "I got mine, Jack!" in the latest polls.

Evolution need not necessarily be strictly biological...our social behavior begins as biological and becomes (for lack of a better word) psychic, as in pertaining to the psyche. We find that our social behavior and our ability to change our environment and use tools is what has made us competitive.

We are a part of nature, as is everything we do and create.

Re:genotype - phenotype

[koekepeer]

unlike in genetics, there is no strict temporal separation between social traits and the selective pressure in a "social darwinistic system". it'smy fundamental gripe with these kind of ideas, and the reason why i have a hard time accepting theories like dawkins' memetics.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[composer777]

People that get worked up over evolution "stopping" are showing, quite obviously, that they think the system is perfectly fair. What you are really saying is that poor people are reproducing more, and it bothers you, because you think that wealth is a sign of intelligence. Therefore, if wealthy people reproduce less, we are "dumbing down". I can see a few holes in this premise, one of them being that wealthy people are more intelligent. In fact, I think the fact that the kinds of people who are wealthy are reproducing at a slower rate is a good thing. Capitalism might be selecting for these kinds of people, but at least evolution has enough sense to pass them by. I'm really not so sure I would consider the perfect capitalist is the person who I would want us to evolve into.

"stupid"

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

In this age of plenty, the best selection traits I can think of are:

1) Ability to predict and manipulate other people;
2) High sex drive;

These two traits in the modern world will almost certainly result in more children, with a high diversity in genes. I certainly don't think that "stupid" people are reproducing more - or if they are, their children are less likely to successfully reproduce.

While both of these may sound negative, the first can actually be very useful in advanced pattern-prediction, and may be highly-related to intelligence. What I don't know is where morality falls into all of this. With the fall of tribalism and the high mobility of modern life, morality may fall by the wayside, as you can subtly screw people for personal gain over without suffering any consequences.

The flipside is that with the current rise in communications and the subsequent loss of worldwide anonymity, we may see some selection for people who are genuinely nice in the coming centuries.

The thing to realize is that we really have no control over this. It's the environment and lifestyle that's providing the biggest pushes in any direction (not eugenics). We have the ability to affect these, but we have *never* used the ability with the intent to drive evolution in any direction.

Nope.

[aussersterne]

Ever have sex with someone of the opposite gender? Were you attracted to them? For whatever reason? And they you?

Yes?

Congratulations, you just participated in the ongoing process of natural selection. You yourself have applied selective pressure in favor of whatever it was that attracted you to him/her, regardless of what the nature of the attraction was or whether you can even spell it out.

Multiply by six billion and you have the human race... evolving.

Re:Nope.

[nickco3]

You yourself have applied selective pressure in favor of whatever it was that attracted you to him/her, regardless of what the nature of the attraction was or whether you can even spell it out.

So the ancient Egyption invention of beer was a major evolutionary milestone?

Re:Nope.

[sexylicious]

So the ancient Egyption invention of beer was a major evolutionary milestone?

Only for ugly people.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Ihlosi]

My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded).

In that case, your definition of "fitness" is obsolete. In fact, it has been obsolete since humanity started using tools. Had your definition of fitness not become obsolete that long ago, well, we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet.

I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors.

No, it has not. First of all, evolution is _slow_ compared to human lifetimes. How can you tell that a process has completely stopped that has time constants in the thousands of years ?

Also, these factors did not stop evolution at all. They merely modified the criteria used in the selection process. A very common fallacy of "critics" of evolution is that the criteria for selection stay the same. If this were the case, well, where are the dinosaurs ? They were wiped off the planet by a change in the selection criteria which they suddenly did not fulfill anymore ... whoops.

China's agriculture "fairly opitimal" for a long

[Ogemaniac]

time?

You had better ask all those tens of millions that starved just a couple of generations ago, and the hundreds of millions that are still impoverished today.

You can still see the effects of WWII in Japan tody, where I live. People born in that era are far shorter than people younger than them - a clear sign of poor nutrition. Young Japanese are close to the same height as Americans, as far as I can tell.

Also, the Flynn effect seems to be leveling off in advanced countries, which is perfectly consistent with the nutrition model, for reasons you noted.

The sad fact of the matter

[Timberwolf0122]

is that some people have to evolution pointed out to them. I for one will welcome our new Psionic overlords.

BTW closed minded religous type what if evloution is gods own service pack?? Homosapien V12.2beta service 99999999
fixes : Psychic powers option now avaiable
Control module for penis fixed (now remains enabled)
installed error checking to prevent feminist bigatory loop
Spell checker for slashdot posters added

Food allergy

[Anonymous Coward]

Food allergies can be symptomless if you consume the food all the time. If you go without the food for a while and then start eating it again the allergy reaction happens at full strenngth. After you have been eating the food you're allergy to for a while the allergic reaction dies down and becomes symptomless again.
Milk is very hard to digest and many people are allergic to it.

No.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Imagine a very smart, very horny, very manipulative person.

Now imaging that all of these traits are dominant, so children are likely to be smart, horny, and able to get what they want.

Eventually, these genes will be prevalent in the human race - and could eventually be in every single human being. That's not random, that's very directed, and very selected.

Evolution is not *just* the survival of an individual. It's even not *just* the ability of an individual to reproduce. You can have a society where everyone gets to have sex, but where at least one partner has a certain trait. It doesn't matter that no one is left out, that trait is now a permanent part of the human landscape.

Humans can't escape their own dys/eugenics

[Baldrson]

People talk a lot about taking responsible for the environmental effects of their decisions but when it comes to genes people go all haywire trying to ignore the fact that their decisions have dysgenic or eugenic consequences.

Yes, evolution is still going on, and no one wants to take responsibility for what their decisions are doing to distort evolution because to even think about it gets the Church Ladies of Political Correctness pursing their lips and asking "Could it be... HITLER!?!?!?!?"

So the Church Ladies of Political Correctness are dooming the world to a Hell where hypocrites thrive and spread their genes to the point that words become meaningless -- humanity slowly disappearing to be replaced by gibbering humanoid zombies that use words the way insects use pheromones.

Re:Humans can't escape their own dys/eugenics

[Jebediah_Mourn]

"that use words the way insects use pheromones"

Nice!

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Anonymous Coward]

it's the same as saying that you are an atheist. to think you can have a proof of the non-existence of a God means conforming to the same system as religious people, thus being completely non-scientific, and actually ridiculing your own "rational" argumentation.

Atheism is not the belief that a god does not exist nor does it require any proof of the non-existence of a god. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. A-thiesm means 'without theism' and nothing more. Atheism is not the positive belief "Gods do not exist". Atheism is not the opposite of Theism.

Agnosticism is more of a statement about the limits of human knowledge than a stantement about the existence of a god. Agnosticism is the belief that humans can never have knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of gods. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. More importantly, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. All true agnostics are atheists and so was Bertrand Russell.

In "Is There a God?" Russel writes:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
-- Bertrand Russell, "Is There a God?"

As a scientist you are not required to prove that pink unicorns do not exist. A scientist does not believe in pink unicorns because there is not enough evidence or proof to justify that belief. Scientists that require a higher level of proof for religion than they require for science are making a mistake.

I was told that the Chinese said they would bury me by the Western Lake and build a shrine to my memory. I have some slight regret that this did not happen, as I might have become a god, which would have been very chic for an atheist.
-- Bertrand Russell, The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell (1967-1969)

trailer parks and stupid people

[zpok]

So heartwarming that so many "intelligent" people confuse poverty with stupidity.

That's the way of the future, wipe out the poor, except those needed for menial jobs (like taking care of our children while we're busy doing intelligent things).

The funniest posts are those who say things like "let's be realistic" before intelligently debating the merits of endlosing to save our gene pool.

Takes me back to a debate I had with someone who assured me that the jews were destroying themselves by inbreeding.
That from a guy who spoke one single language and had only one degree, while my inbreeding neighbours spoke at least six languages and considered one degree only just above no degree at all.

Mind, some of my neighbours have tried to explain to me that arabs are not people, which goes to show:

Big brains are overrated. By the intelligent *and* the stupid.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[Slur]

Ironic results in that:

--- More people believe what the ancestral Bible - and their parents - tell them than what the scientific evidence describes.

--- Jesus said "Give up your mother and father..."

It seems to me wholly compatible with Christianity to trust science (our extended senses) to analyze the nature of material reality. Then one can apply faith properly - where uncertainties truly exist.

As an aside, from what I can tell, whenever Jesus says the word "faith" he seems actually to mean "creativity" or the ability to extend analogies.... Just a weird observation of mine.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Fred_A]

Why should KY be excluded ? Lubrication is built into humans and has been for ever. Those who need assistance in this matter either pick the wrong orifice (naughty naughty) or, by your own terms, aren't fit to reproduce.

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Murasaki Skies]

Thank you for replying so well; otherwise, I would've had to have done it.

--Agnostic atheist

ID is betta

[theolein]

I no taht Intel-igent Desine is betta. And its true to. Its a fact. Not like you're evolution theory. And us christian's people are celverer than you, becaus we have comma sense. And your alway hating us and sayin were dum. ;)

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

First, let me open with an intelligent, well thought out "fuck you". **I** said **NOTHING** about rich -vs- poor, my focus was actually more on invitro fertilization and those who "choose to defy nature's/god's/allah's/mother earth's/Jebus's/whoever's will" (which is a simplistic, bullshit way to say it).

Now, with that out of the way... look at another post I made here:

My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise (KY is, of course excluded). If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking). And yes, when nearly everyone who chooses to procreate can, evolution has been "magically suspend[ed]" (again IMHO).

As for Stephen Hawking and the like [or the poor in your case composer777], as I said I am not advocating that social programs be repealed, that we all become Christian Scientists and that we all shun invitro fertilization... I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors. I don't want to see the day where the "duh, football..." guys are the only ones who can survive, nor am I saying everyone deemed to be developmentally disabled [or the poor, composer777] should be clubbed on the head.

Bypass Web Site Registration

[Anonymous Coward]

With the BugMeNot FireFox extension: http://www.bugmenot.com/ It rocks.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

Two things... 1) Exactly what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that help you sticking (or receiving) a penis in the vagina? Or what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that assist a sperm entering an egg, or an egg embed itself into the vaginal wall? Sure, you can use some lube and a turkey baster if you really want to, but neither have been around "since humanity started using tools". So tell me, what tools are you referring to and approx. how long ago did said tools come into use (not widespread use, simply use)?

2) Yes, evolution is slow. But in the Darwin definition of evolution by natural selection, when nearly 100% of the population that *choose* to procreate can and do, I find it hard to see how evolution by natural selection is still functioning on a level higher then "ever so slightly" (Disclaimer: At anything 100% it very much still is functioning, if ever so slightly, so in that way you have a point there, but 0.10322% functionality is hardly anything to get all hot and bothered about).

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

I'm truly not trolling here... but how does evolution proceed without natural selection? This computer nerd with only the min required number of Bio. classes can't see how it can (while fully realizing his limitation of knowledge in the matter)?

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[hankwang]

My problem was definately about a lack of lactase.

That does in itself not exclude the theory of the good/bad bacteriae. Yoghurt bacteriae transform lactose into lactic acid (see wikipedia.

I doubt though that eating yoghurt will help someone who's lactose intolerant to digest normal milk. Most bacteriae won't make it through the acidity of the stomach (except if you ingest those special yoghurts with acid-tolerant bacteriae) and even then they would need several hours to convert the lactose. (Yoghurt preparation takes 6 hours at 43 C (110 F)).

God through Genetics.........?

[mrRay720]

Ummm... so right are granted by genes now then? Rights granted by mixes of chemicals inside a helix molecule inside your cells... a 'different' viewpoint to say the least. DNA as God, and proteins as Angels carrying out his holy mission.

There is no such thing as a fundamental right, only superficial ones granted by society, and they are really just priveledges with a bit more weight behind them.

Re:God through Genetics.........?

[Anonymous Coward]

God wants you to shut the fuck up, shitbreath.

There is a very strong correlation between

[Ogemaniac]

intelligence and income. What are you talking about?

Re:There is a very strong correlation between

[CmdrGravy]

So babies born into rich families are generally more intelligent than those born into poor families ?

Re:There is a very strong correlation between

[i41Overlord]

So babies born into rich families are generally more intelligent than those born into poor families ?

On average they are more intelligent, yes. They get their genes from their parents, and someone in their bloodlines proved themselves able to outsmart their competition and make more money than them.

While you'll get isolated cases of people becoming rich by hitting the lottery, that's the exception and not the rule. On average, the cream of the crop will rise to the top.

Baah....

[Ogemaniac]

Do you want to raise taxes by 5% (of your total income, for life) to pay for this? If you want teachers to have the same amount of education as doctors, you will have to pay them accordingly.

All that, and there is little evidence that dumping more money in schools makes much of a difference in the first place.

As someone who has sat through a number of teacher education courses, I can't possibly imagine what years of enduring such BS would accomplish except to drive almost every teacher out of the profession before they taught anyone anything.

Some kind of religious bigot?

[AndroidCat]

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

I say it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster and my religious faith is just as valid as yours!

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Ihlosi]

1) Exactly what human tools have been around since "that long ago" that help you sticking (or receiving) a penis in the vagina?

The tools that allow individuals to actually get that far along the way of reproduction.

Fire. Helps to avoid freezing off important parts during cold winter nights. Also helps to keep your offspring from freezing solid during those nights, and helps to keeps the tigers away that want to snack on you, your partner and your offspring.

Clothing. See above. Can also help to influence potential mating partner's preference towards the wearer.

Jewelry/other adornments. See latter point of clothing.

Weapons. See the part about tigers above. Also help to impress potential partners, keep rivals away and provide food to you, your partner and your offspring.

Blankets. Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?

Houses. Better version of blankets for that purpose.

Reducing "fitness" to the short time from intercourse to conception is quite shortsighted (to the point of blindness). Whoever can reproduce and ensure the survival of the offspring is "fit". Regardless of the tools used in the process. If someone can't do this even with currently available tools, well, in that case they should come up with better tool or they'll end up "unfit".

Re:I (don't) agree

[chuckT]

Is there not a major assumption being made here - that smart people are wealthier than poor people?

I think of myself as pretty smart, but I know a lot of dumb people who earn more than I do. Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence.

In fact, I suspect that there are far more important qualities, relating to the ability to focus on specific activities or goals that are relevant to an individuals wealth generating ability.

In any event, I would completely reject your implication that we kill off the poor because they are polluting the human gene pool. Your argument is based on false assumptions, could itself potentially remove useful variety from the gene pool, and goes against every compassionate human instinct I possess.

I don't like it.

Sorry.

At this point, I think we should invoke Godwin's law , and shut up.

* puke *

[ThinWhiteDuke]

I agree. This whole civilization thing is way overrated. The mere concept of helping each other for no immediate personal profit reeks of communism. Let's abolish all of this crap and adopt an efficient win-or-die model. Well, the wolves have been doing this for eons, and they are obviously a much better evolutionary success than us humans.

Look, what you wrote is wrong on so many ways... Factually, morally, economically, you name it. People like you consider that misery is a feature of the system rather than a bug. You have wilfully renounced what has always driven human development.

You, sir, are evil.

Re:* puke *

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, more misery in the short run, or more misery in the long run. Which of you is supposed to be evil again?

Two diff mechanisims in rich and poor

[plnrtrvlr]

Maybe what we are looking at is two different survival strategies between the rich and poor. It is a fair assumption that in the USA at least, the poor have a greater reproductive rate than the more affluent members of society. The affluent have based their survival strategy upon insulating themselves from environmental affects (the people most likely to have escaped Katrina were those who could afford to) that threaten them, and therefore can chose to select their mates based upon more selective criteria: looks, fitness, a propensity within a family to be able to accumulate wealth. The human race will benefit from this together for as long as there is "crossovers" from one gene pool to the other, as can happen frequently in this country (the actual frequency of the poor becoming rich is debatable, but it DOES happen) so that useful adaptations are itroduced back and forth between the two classes. It is even conceivable that the human species could eventually (millions of years, forget I said this, it's pure speculation) cease to breed between the haves and have nots, and become two seperate species in some kind of scene from H.G. Wells. Th fact that the poor seem to reproduce more effectively than the rich (even assuming that there IS a corrolation between wealth and intelligence) does not mean that evolution has been undermined though, it simply means that we cannot see into the future enough to know what selective pressures the environment will favor next.

Re:I (don't) agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than killing the idiots off, how about we get government intervention then? Shock troops leaping through the window whenever a jock traumatizes some nerd by shoving them in the locker. Tax credits for your daughter taking a nerd to the prom instead of the football hero (exceptions of course being made in cases where the football players aren't just jocks), and so on ;)

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Shano]

More to the point, how can natural selection occur without a selection pressure?

The fact is, there are still selection pressures, but they're social rather than physical. Virtually everyone can survive, and with modern technology is capable of reproduction, but not everyone does. What's selected depends largely on what characteristics people look for in potential mates. Note that there's a big difference between "who I'd want to have sex with" and "who I'd want to have my children", which has come about due to the prevalence of contraceptives.

Being a Slashdotter, of course, that last sentence is largely hypothetical.

I leave the rest to the sociologists - there's a lot of research on this, which I'm barely familiar with, but I don't think it's quite as bleak as it might seem.

Pfft to evolution

[lisany]

What good is evolution if I'm not privy to the next generation's upgrades?

Now I know how a 386 feels.

*cry*

A few points

[Ogemaniac]

Is there not a major assumption being made here - that smart people are wealthier than poor people? The correlation between intelligence and wealth is very high. Of course, humans consist of too many variables for the correlation to be perfect. "Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence." 90% of millionaires are self-made and earned the money. Luck has little to do with it. Even in the cases of inheritance, which are rare, you would still find a correlation between wealth and intellgence, because whomever they inherited from was likely to be intelligent and also likely to be related. In fact, I suspect that there are far more important qualities, relating to the ability to focus on specific activities or goals that are relevant to an individuals wealth generating ability. No doubt there are other abilities, but I don't think any of them matter as much as intelligence. Most jobs with good salaries nowadays require a good mind, not a pretty face or a strong back. In any event, I would completely reject your implication that we kill off the poor because they are polluting the human gene pool. I never said that. I specifically said that the lower classes are reproducing at approximately the rate consistent with zero population growth, which is fine. It is rich/educated/intelligent people who are not having enough children to replace themselves. We need polices that encourage them to have children, not policies that punish the poor for doing so. One idea that I like is to tie your Social Security payments to the productivity of your children. If half of your paycheck came directly from your kids (and from the kids' perspective, half your payment went to your parents), there would be much more incentive to middle and upper class families to have children, and much less dead-weight economic loss.

Re:A few points

[Anonymous Coward]

The correlation between intelligence and wealth is very high.

I think you're confusing a couple of things. You're probably talking about the general tendancy for wealth to not end up in the hands of total morons -- like sub-90 IQs (bearing in mind that IQ tests were invented to measure degrees of retardation, not degrees of intelligence). I think if you look at individuals with IQs over 100, you'd find very little correlation between wealth and intelligence. The most successful entrepreneurs I know are not particularly bright. They aren't idiots, but they are by no means exceptional -- easily within one standard deviation of average IQ.

So what about the really intelligent people? Your theory just doesn't hold there.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

We obviously differ on the definition of "natural". No matter which way you cut it, a doc scrapping out eggs from a woman in stirrups, a guy jerkin into a plastic cup and a person mixing them together in a clean room/petri dish is not the logical extension of a cave man kickin' it by the fire. Fire, blankets and homes - these things allow humanity to invade/inhabit (depending on your perspective) environments that we are not specifically designed to inhabit. I can fuck just fine in Cairns or San Diego all year round naked 100% of the time. In South Lake Tahoe I need those things, but the cradle of humanity was not in Tahoe, it was in the middle east/Africa. Besides, beavers (no, the small furry kind... no the ones with tails... agh nevermind) build dams (homes) and utilize blankets (homes as you suggested as better blankets, but beavers also use the warmth of rotting plant material, which I guess could be their fire), yet I see this as "natural". Yet, again, stirrups + plastic cup + petri dish != "natural" in my book.

With this angle of argument, you could probably get me to concede that insulin for a severe diabetic that otherwise would not have survived into adulthood is a logical extension of the cave man using fire to be able to live 2 hills over (just because 1 tool is "more complicated" then another doesn't change the fact that they are both tools). But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[nagora]

It seems to me wholly compatible with Christianity to trust science (our extended senses) to analyze the nature of material reality.

Only superficially. Ultimately, science is about questioning and religion is about dogma (or "faith" if you prefer) and in the final analysis that means they are totally opposed to each other.

A nice lie like Chirstianity is still a lie; we're better off not knowing than living with that.

TWW

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

you forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs a hide to survive cold winters. No one needs the kind of physical prowness to hunt and kill game with almost bare hands. The shaping influences to man, and the challenges he faces come from society nowadays. It follows that evolution selects for adaption to society and civilization.

Also, the inability to reproduce wouldn't be selected against if reproduction wasn't necessary for selection to occure in the first place. On survival or any other function of life, it absolutely has no impact. Thus artificial reproduction doesn't dump down the gene pool at all.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Byzboy]

>If nature wouldn't have allowed certain individuals to reproduce, and yet modern medicine/technology/whatever have, their "faulty" genes are allowed to continue past their naturally selected "use by date", so to speak. How in the hell is this not a bad thing for the population as a whole?

I'm always amazed at the apparent self confidence in people who make comments such as this. So the gene pool is being contaminated by the genes of people who shouldn't reproduce. Guess what? we've been doing this for a long time. Most people writing on slashdot should not be alive. Do you think that weakling dweebs were the great survivors of the long hunter-gatherer stage? Perhaps that is why young fertile women are drawn to geeks, they have evolved to recognize the superior male. Do any of you wear glasses? You should be dead or do you think there wear short-sighted people avoiding predators, hunting and combating rival tribes during most of Homo history.

Sorry if this sounds like a personal attack, it actually isn't. Most of us would not have survived the childhood diseases that we currently vaccinate against. We have evolved to help each other. This has led to many, many changes in our genetic composition to the point were we are the top predator and most adaptable organism. The price we pay is a slightly higher load of deleterious alleles that we are mostly able to handle. Overall a genetic bargain because we have out competed every organism that only relies on Selection whereas humans sidestep it.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology -
This is wrong. Think about it, selection serves the 'purpose' of creating organisms best suited to the enviroment that challenges them. In no way has fitness any relation to procreation. It's just a correlation that fucking more used to equal being successfully adapted (enough food a) for the fucking and b) for keeping the kids alive). In the natural state, it just happens that the ability to procreate is a prequesite to having your genes selected for. At this point, the fitness of those genes meaning the prowness to survive in a given enviroment doesn't even enter in the equation.

As an krass example: Take human A, living in a culture that prohibts birth control, who is also a lousy farmer. Loaded with testerstron, he soon has 10 kids. Because he sucks so bad at farming one year his harvest failes. His family dies from starvation, because he also is'nt a savy saver. Human B is a sucessful farmer. He has little sexdrive and thus only has one kid. His harvests never fail, and if they do, he'd have saved enough to bring his family through the rough times.
It's obvious what just has been selected for: The ability to keep the family alive. B is an evolutionary success story because he was skilled and utilized long term planning not because he was able to out-procreate someone else.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Ihlosi]

We obviously differ on the definition of "natural".

Maybe. In the context of "selection", to me that's anything not caused by FSMs, IPUs or similar entities. Evolution does not really care about the origin of the selection, though, just that the selection exists.

But the fact remains, in that case that individual is able to pass along his/her traits of severe diabetes which is not a desirable trait to carry. 'Cause should that particular "tool" (insulin) become unavailable for even a short amount of time... Darwin gets ya and your offspring should they carry the same trait. And that, in my opinion is a "weakness" of that individual, genetically speaking.

That is one of the problems with evolution - it has a long memory, but close to zero foresight.

And while dependence on certain substances or tools might look undesirable, look at how many of those dependencies humans already have: a certain range of gravity, pressure, oxygen, a certain temperature range, suitable food, etc. Darwin will get ya if you suddenly take any of those away, too. Happened to the dinosaurs.

but stupid people still reproduce

[oliverthered]

From where I'm standing it looks like stupid people are reproducing far more than intelligent people (e.g. the stupid people who listen to the pope about contraception!), so if anything were devolving.

Oh Brave New World

[Insensitive_Claudio]

I was waiting for someone to make this allusion...

wrong way...

[MERVERNATOR]

Id believe devolving.. based on the random thoughtless acts fueled by lack of common sense I see on a daily basis.... Computers might be evolving... perhaps human looking machines may be an evolution... judgement day is right around the corner.

LSD is mutagenic

[0x0000]

Right? I mean, they kept telling us that that it cause "chromosone damage" - then they quit talking aobut that suddenly. Now it's just illegal. Like human cloning. Huh.

In any case, we're a couple generations out, now, from that first generation whose parents "tripped", and the tracking of those "Firestarter" kids is *still* a 'black proect' that nobody wants to talk about. Mutants are a reality - it just remains to define the mutations.

Human Brain Evolving

[JerryLs]

So, I didn't know they had 60,000 year old genes to compare with modern. Obviously, they find what they expect to find...

Age of the universe is the problem for evolution

[kid_oliva]

The thing that hampers evolution is the defining the age for the universe at 13.7 billion years old. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discover y_030211.html All the sudden you do not have enough time for certain astronomical things to happen like white dwarfs, black holes, and what not. http://www.wheatonma.edu/Academic/AcademicDept/Ast ronomy/TBarker120/Feb14/ClassNotes.html When our sun is having it's beginning around 10.3 billion years ago and the needed cycles to produce heavy elements to form planets like the Earth, evolution and Big Bang as people have postulated them, do not have enough time. You can clearly start to argue that things like intelligent life further along than us probably is false due to a time factor, not to mention the earth should not be possible because you have not had enough stars go supernova to create all the heavier elements required. I remember growing up and people postulating that the universe was trillion of years old, like 2.4 trillion. We see that this was false, but that amount of time is necessary for Big Bang and evolution to work as postulated. The question is what is really true and what is the cosmology make-up? Evolution is not possible because the Earth should not exist, yet it does. I like how people love Einstein but seem to forget the words of wisdom he had.

LSD is NOT a mutagen/teratogen...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Regardless of what they might spew in DARE classes...

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_writings4. shtml
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_229.html
http://www.levity.com/aciddreams/samples/chromosom e.html
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/chromosomes.htm

Re:LSD is NOT a mutagen/teratogen...

[0x0000]

Well, my information dated from the era before there was a DARE program, but your point is well-taken. Excellent links. Thanks. I was a bit disapointed by the conclusions, though - it means that neither my own psychotic and sociopathic behaviour nor my childrens' extrordinary abilities can be attributed directly to any particular chemical ingenstion that may or may not have been a part of my past. While many people could consider that a Good Thing(tm), I find, rather, that it leaves me with a feeling of emptiness - a sort of directionless meaninglessness. In short, it's depressing - and (as the reassearch has shown) not even LSD will provide permenant relief. *sigh* I hope I don't get as dependent on LSD as I am on coffee (I know, I know, coffee is a physical dependency, but still - body/mind/spirit, you know?) ...

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Gulthek]

Evolution is a progession, not a reaction!

How many times do I have to say this before you people get it?

It is our best interest as a species to keep as large genetic toolkit (diversity in the gene pool) as possible. Civilization helps us hold to that diversity by allowing as many people as possible to reproduce.

You see it as somehow halting our progression to that perfect being but let me clue you in: there is no perfect being. A being can be perfectly suited to its conditions, but then it is dangerously tied to those conditions. If a being has evolved too much and its environmental conditions change then it has no way to adapt quickly enough to survive.

Additionally, as a species we need all the diversity we can get. Our gene pool is incredibly small compared to other primates (a strong indicator that we came from a very small population), so while we aren't exactly Dodo-like, we aren't as far off as we like to think.

Let me reiterate, slowly.

Environments change. Evolution is the process through which a species changes to adapt to new environments. Evolution needs genetic diversity to function well. So greater diversity makes a stronger species.

We don't know what genes will play a vital role in our species' survival.

Read about the link between sickle-cell anemia and malaria if you don't think that a "bad" gene can have good effects in the right conditions.

I have never seen those statistics directly

[Ogemaniac]

but the correlation between intelligence and wealth is around .7. The correlation between parents' and a child's intelligence is about the same. Therefore, you should see a quite robust correlation between the wealth and intelligence - even before you consider the positive effects on learning that a good family would typically provide.

Re:I have never seen those statistics directly

[CmdrGravy]

There is a correlation between education and wealth, as you would expect, but any correlation between innate intelligence and wealth is much more tenous and hinges on the different nutrional and lifestyle choices of the parent rather than anything directly inherited.

Re:I have never seen those statistics directly

[lgw]

There's also an amazingly strong cultural correlation for wealth: children of rich parents statistically benefit *more* financially from their upbringing than any inheritance. Being taught the right way to think about money is the largest determining factor for wealth. I think this is just one of many ways in which social evolution has replaced genetic evolution as the important factor for humans.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[csjavi]

but how does evolution proceed without natural selection?

There's "unnatural" selection. Most (if not all) of the domesticated animals are a result of careful selection by the human species. That's how you get a chihuahua and a rottweiler.

We're talking averages here.

[i41Overlord]

Is there not a major assumption being made here - that smart people are wealthier than poor people?

I think of myself as pretty smart, but I know a lot of dumb people who earn more than I do. Wealth (and by implication survival in the modern world - although that is another questionable assumption) is far more a matter of luck and inheritance (wealth or status, not genes) than intelligence.

While there will always be deviation from the average, the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people. If you look at the many studies that have been done on this, you'll see that IQ closely correlates to wealth.

Bringup up a deviation and saying that it disproves the general trend is ignorant. It's just like with people with college degrees- sure, you have some self-made men like Bill Gates who make more money than most college degree holders. But the fact remains that on average, a college degree holder makes more money than someone who doesn't have a degree.

We're talking genetics here, so it's the averages on the long run that matter.

And bringing up Godwin's law was senseless. Nobody mentioned Nazi's. That was just a thinly-veiled attempt to do so. You wanted to bring it up but you didn't want to look like a fool.

Re:We're talking averages here.

[i41Overlord]

While there will always be deviation from the average, the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people.

That should read, "smart people make more money than *dumb* people."

Most people make more money than poor people :-)

Re:We're talking averages here.

[chuckT]

Er, I wasn't trying to use a deviation to disprove the trend, I was merely reporting an observation.

And while I am quite willing to look at studies that do prove the point, I will remain highly sceptical that poor=dumb. It is far more likely that rich = better(educated/nourished/supported/housed)= performs well on IQ tests, and *that*, surely is the point to be disproved.

You may already have read The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould, which discusses many of these points far better than I could ever hope to.

I mentioned Godwin's law because as soon as you start discussions about there being a genetic basis to societal differences, you are one step away from discussing eugenics and National Socialism. I mentioned it, not because I did not want to seem a fool (I'm not quite sure why that would be, actually), but because that discussion looked like an inevitable next step. I was right, too, take a look further down.

Now, saying "smart people make more money than *dumb* people", well *that* makes me look like a fool who should check what he writes more carefully ;-)

Re:We're talking averages here.

[j_snare]

I'd like to raise another point here. While smart people won't necessarily make more money than dumb people, they may be able to do more with their money than the dumb person would. I know plenty of smart people who make less, but live much more comfortably, or have much more security in their savings than dumb people who make a lot of money.

One particular person I know was making 4 times the amount of another person I know, yet the first person had almost no savings, they had no idea why they had less money either.

So we've got four Groups here, from least to most successful.

No saving, low income
No saving, high income
Savings, low income
Savings, high income

You can do a lot with very little money.

Re:We're talking averages here.

[teknopagan]

the fact remains that, on average, smart people make more money than poor people.

Wow, this is so true! In fact, everybody but other poor people and dead people make more money than poor people.

Smart people also tend to have more children than sterile people.

Re:We're talking averages here.

[i41Overlord]

Pretty funny :-)

But in my own defense, I did make correct that mistake 4 hours before your reply.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=161646&cid=135 17984

MOD Parent up

[Tiroth]

I already posted to this thread or I would. Horseshoe crabs were the first thing I thought of as well. I've seen statements that the horseshoe crab has hardly changed in over 200 million years -- I guess evolution gets it right sometimes.

Milk and caffeine

[rheotaxis]

The same gene for digesting milk makes you high from caffeine. The proff is the success of Starbucks, and those drive-through Espresso stands that are starting to show up in California now, many years after they appeared in Seattle. This just proves that people in California take more time to think about things, or maybe we're just "slow"? How come, if we needed caffeine more, we got it later?

Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong.

[cuteface]

I think we have been making a wrong assumption here all this time. Who said evoluntionary intelligence has anything to do with performing well in IQ tests? Maybe Mother Nature or God just don't like highly cerebral humans. Why?

Firstly, just as they are capable of great benefits to society, they are also capable of great harm, like intelligent criminals? Secondly, smart people can vastly impact the eco-system and not always for the best, how about short-sighted scientists? Lastly, maybe folks with lower IQ can relate better to others, empathize with the masses....becoz they in the majority! So they are easier to get along....same frequency perhaps.

So the next time, someone praised you for being intelligent and well-off....just bear these in mind.....seriously, it may not be a good thing in my not-so-honorable opinion ;P

We do.

[i41Overlord]

If we lived in societies where the amount of money you had was related to intelligence then maybe you'd have a point but unfortunately we don't.

We do.

Wealth is definitely related to intelligence. There have been many studies stating that obvious fact. Just do a search and take a look at them for yourself.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

From common ancestors to now.

[Anonymous Coward]

If everyone had a few common ancestors from what is now Ethiopia like the discovery channel would have me believe - going from there to now (with noticiably different black, white, asian, and aboraginals etc..) is it not pretty clear we have diverged greatly into different species?

Unless I'm to believe, not only did we have a few common ancestors but one looked asian, one looked 'euro-white', another black etc... That is just too far fetched.

Is it the work species that is in confusion? When observed dogs that are quite varried in size, proportions, and coloring we call them different breeds -why not so with people? Not saying one is better than the other but a African Pygmy and a Pacific Samoian are pretty unmistakably different.

Re:From common ancestors to now.

[Guppy06]

" is it not pretty clear we have diverged greatly into different species?"

Most certainly not. Two members of two differen species cannot breed a fertile offspring. If that were true of, say, whites and Hispanics, I wouldn't be here as my mother wouldn't be able to have children.

"When observed dogs that are quite varried in size, proportions, and coloring we call them different breeds -why not so with people?"

Breeds != species. All dogs can interbreed with each other, which is why verifying a dog's purebred status can be so important to collectors and such.

"Not saying one is better than the other but a African Pygmy and a Pacific Samoian are pretty unmistakably different."

If they can have a fertile child, they're of the same species. Appearances can be deceiving.

Hey mutant girl, come on over here and get you som

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey there mutant girl, why don't you come lay down over here so we can make us some evolution.

No Welfare?! Check out 'dependents'

[FatSean]

The US tax code reqrds those who breed by giving them tax credits. It's welfare in the tax code.

Wow

[Sheepdot]

I'm disturbed by the number of otherwise intelligent atheist evolutionists that are falling for creationist trolls. You're all biting it hook, line, and sinker. Even the mods.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong.

[toad3k]

Maybe we are thinking about it the wrong way.

Ever notice in an anthill, only a small percentage of the bees actually reproduce. They have workers and fighters, who live only to produce something for the rest of the hive, such that it may survive.

Maybe nerds are a periodic anomoly that has always appeared throughout history. Maybe we are here to spur innovation and advance our culture, so that the other 70% of society can veg out and reproduce.

Damn, that sucks.

Please Mod Parent Up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deference to authority perhaps? The gene that enables groupthink, which, today seems to be sending us into the abyss but thousands of years ago meant the difference between one tribe surviving another?

Nokilli, thank you for making this discernment with an excellent example.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

You're right... there is no "perfect being", but I'd suggest that a being with the fewest "flaws" is more perfect then one with more "flaws".

Of course with that, you must define what a "flaw" is. I submit that any genetic predisposition that would serve to limit your procreation, either via shear inability or by a lack of reaching maturity is a "flaw" (let's say diabetes, just as an example). Now... in today's "environment" (that is, the environment that we create for ourselves, which includes Merck, Pfizer, etc) diabetes is not an issue. But place said person in say, New Orleans (either last week or 100 years ago - "environments change" as you said). Said genetic propensity becomes a major liability, as Merck, Pfizer and their ilk are no longer present in your "environment" (as you put it - the individual is "dangerously tied to those conditions"). Call me crazy, but I view that as a "genetic weakness". But you are right... some "flaws" turn out to be advantages in some cases. But how is it in our best interest to keep something in our "genetic toolkit" that nature itself is trying to get rid of by limiting the individuals procreation? Just because we can play god doesn't mean we should, or even have the right to. And yet in many ways that is exactly what we do.

As for evolution being a progression rather then a reaction, I call bullshit. Evolution in the Darwinian sense is via natural selection - a *reaction* to your environment. You can't run faster then your predator? You're dead. You can't see the color red very well and another predator is mostly red, you're dead. You can't tolerate the bacteria in the only source of water, you're dead. Reaction to the environment around you. Just like the predator who became a faster runner (or red) to catch yo ass.

I suppose that we are "progressing" now, in so far as there are no "environmental" influences on our choices. And by "environmental" I mean the natural environment (faster predators, etc), not the man made one (Pfizer, socioeconomic, etc). Anyone who wants to procreate pretty much can. Sure, we can't all rail Scarlet Johansen or Natalie Portman (or get knocked up by Brad Pitt for the lady in the audience, you know there's at least 1 on /.!!). But we manage, despite diabetes, traditional infertility and the like. But sink your ass in the middle of an "environment" without Pfizer, invitro fertilization, etc and your genetic line is in serious trouble. So who is the better determiner of the "best" traits? Nature or Pfizer? Sorry, but I pick nature, and I guess that makes me "blind" thinking that the thing that has brought us this far is not better suited then ourselves to determine our genetic direction.

Silly me.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

Exactly! But why start with one foot already in a hole by unnaturally and artificially carrying forward "weaknesses" that nature itself is trying to rid us of via functions such as traditional infertility? Besides, we are all eventually at the will of the earth... she gets smacked by a sufficiently large rock from space and we're all fucked.

BTW, WTF is FSMs and IPUs? (and yes, I exploited the irony).

I Think I Missed Something Here

[MikeyTheK]

I've seen lots of comments on this thread about how traits are selected because they increase survivability, or they increase a person's ability to procreate, blah, blah, blah.
What I haven't seen is anyone stating the mechanism by which this happens. Evolution isn't some driving force. Evolution is simply a result. Evolution is simply a pattern - a way to explain what we see - that traits are statistically more or less common in species in given geographic areas.
The question is Why? Can one seriously argue that lactose tolerance (or intolerance) increases survival of humans in areas that produce (or don't produce) bovine milk? Probabily not. It is, I believe a mathmatical fallacy to suggest that statistics provide answers. Statistics simply are summary of data that, due to their curiosity, cause people to ask questions (and rightly so).
The argument that the welfare state, or high sex drive, or intelligence has been selected would seem to also be silly, until related events can be correlated against them.
If an Atlantic tsunami wipes out the entire East Coast, there will be an associated reduction in traits that were concentrated there. In addition, beings digging through the fossils ten thousand years from now might be inclined to draw some conclusion based on the stark differences in numbers of fossils with various traits (uh, smart people don't live in coastal areas), when no such conclusion may be warranted.
In an evolutionary sense, did the people who live in the interior have some sort of advantage based on their genetics? Maybe. Maybe we're just lucky in ten thousand years we'll know for sure.
However what we WILL find is that of the people that live on the coast and survive the tsunami, there will be a statistically higher concentration of certain traits, that might have enabled them to survive. Their genes will survive. The others won't.

Oh, and just so we don't have a repeat of the hand-wringing that we're having over NOLA, I would like to serve notice right now: There WILL be a tsunami that causes devestation to the East Coast. Yet I don't see a mass exodus out of there. Why is that? Maybe people in the interior are smarter after all.

Re:I Think I Missed Something Here

[Ihlosi]

Can one seriously argue that lactose tolerance (or intolerance) increases survival of humans in areas that produce (or don't produce) bovine milk?

Maybe the gene now no longer serves its intended function (which is why it can get replaced with its "faulty" version that allows adult mammals to tolerate lactose).

Having the gene in the first place makes perfect sense to anyone who know a bit about mammalian reproduction physiology. Nursing inhibits ovulation in the female. Forcing the offspring to stop nursing allows for more reproductive cycles. Developing lactose intolerance in early life is a pretty sure way to accomplish that.

Thererefore: Yes, one can perfectly well argue that the lactose intolerance gene makes sense. All that's required is some basic physiology. Just because you can't argue doesn't mean anyone else can't.

Re:I Think I Missed Something Here

[MikeyTheK]

Oh, and one other thing: it's difficult to argue that lactose intolerance is or is not "faulty". It just is. Since we don't understand every little nuance of human physiology, especially at the cellular level, there may be very good reason to (or not to) consume milk from any species beyond a certain age, but the fact that it tastes so good to me makes me believe that may not be the case.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong. (Score:2)
by toad3k (882007) on Friday September 09, @09:45AM (#13518259)

Maybe we are thinking about it the wrong way.

Ever notice in an anthill, only a small percentage of the bees actually reproduce.

Only in Soviet Russia...

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

Ok, here's another case in point - angora rabbits. They are so overly inbred that approx. half are infertile. They are even incapable of surviving outside of captivity (as they have to be shaved every 3 months, else they overheat and die). Now this is an apples and oranges comparison, but I believe this also works in the reverse. When you focus genetics to express certain traits, weaknesses are exposed. So what happens when you "allow" weaknesses to continue in the gene pool in direct opposition to what nature is trying to do (in this case, weed them out by stopping the genetic line)? At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.

No, he is actually right

[Moraelin]

No, there is no "Mother Nature" who shuns nerds, other than as a methaphor. If you reproduce faster, evolution favors you, if not not. That's it. There is noone (other than maybe your potential gf/bf) going "ooh, this guy might do eco damage, let's not let him reproduce."

In fact, au contraire, the humans which _did_ reproduce are those who survived the ice age by causing thousands of species, mamoths included, to go extinct. If there is a "Mother Nature", it actually favoured the most ruthless and destructive bastards back then.

But that's the whole point: "back then." Selection factors existed that just don't exist any more. I'm not blaming it on socialism or anything. It's just the very same economic factors that allow us to live better than our ancestors, that also allow people to survive that wouldn't have some 5000 years ago.

Life used to be harsh and challenging, and oportunities to die were aplenty. Being smart enough to avoid them was a very clear advantage. I don't necessarily mean "smart" in the "nerd studying ancient scrolls" way (and definitely not as in strictly the IQ number), but even simply smart enough to figure out a good hiding place when bandits raided your village, or whatever.

Being smart or dumb also greatly affected your chances to move up or down the social pyramid. E.g., if you tried being a trader, knowing some maths and the ability to learn new languages could make all the difference in the world between bankruptcy and one day even buying a nobility title. (There's a reason why it was the phoenicians that invented the alphabet: they needed to transcribe stuff in all languages of the people they did business with.) E.g., being able and ambitious enough to learn the Egyptian or Chinese symbols, almost automatically granted you a much safer and easier life as a scribe.

These moves between social strata were a lot more meaningful back then. E.g., moving from peasant to scribe actually made a difference in your chances of survival. The next time a drought hit, you would no longer be among those that starved to death. E.g., being a _successful_ mechant almost doubled your life expectancy.

Now however, we're at the point where being a heart surgeon, sure, gives you more money and luxuries, but you don't risk starving to death as a janitor either. See his neighbour.

Now I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I very much like having today's luxuries instead of the harsh natural selection that was the norm 1000 years ago. And I certainly don't wish anyone to starve to death or have any other of the misfortunes that were the norm back then. I'm just saying that a change _did_ happen, and a very real selection factor _did_ disappear.

So, yes, nowadays with the guaranteed survival of everyone, and the broken culture it spawned where learning anything or showing any signs of intelligence is uncool, you're right: "So the next time, someone praised you for being intelligent and well-off....just bear these in mind.....seriously, it may not be a good thing in my not-so-honorable opinion ;P" But that hasn't always been the case.

Re:No, he is actually right

[lgw]

In fact, au contraire, the humans which _did_ reproduce are those who survived the ice age by causing thousands of species, mamoths included, to go extinct. If there is a "Mother Nature", it actually favoured the most ruthless and destructive bastards back then.

Your conclusion may be correct, but your facts are pretty far off. The current ice age started about 50 million years ago, and we haven't survived it yet, as it hasn't ended. The current ice age comprises short periods of warmth like the one we're in now, punctuating long periods of glaciation. The current warm spell started about 15 kya, with temperatures rising quickly to reach current levels about 10 kya.

Human population 15-10 kya was pretty small, so it's unlikely we could have achieved this level of environmental impact. Thousands of species adapted to weather that had been cooling for 100 ky no doubt went extinct, but becaue of the rapid climate change, not because of man.

The Vostock ice core data has been a real eye-opener, especially the data from 400-100 kya, that shows the 100 ky or so cycle of glaciation and warming.

Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that as long as we still have wars fought over religion... we have quite a way to go in the brain evolution process.

Maybe Darwin and Dawkins are right!?

The new D&D = Darwin and Dawkins

Duh!

[ZeroConcept]

Christian researchers corrected:

"Researchers Say Human Brain is Still being intelligently designed."

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

So say you have a genetic heart defect that is surgicially repaired. You pass those traits onto your offspring just like you pass on your blue eyes or brown hair. Now, they simply get their heart defect patched up, but their mother passed blood that doesn't properly coagulate, complicating the surgery.

But I "...forget that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The orginal "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...

evolution is _slow_?

[willCode4Beer.com]

evolution is _slow_ compared to human lifetimes

This should be clarified that human evolution is slow compared to human lifetimes. Many bacteria and single celled organisms are observed to evolve in a course of hours.

Some creatures are observed to evolve in a course of weeks. For non-believers in evolution, I offer an example. In the south-east US there is a hug problem with cockroaches. You can go and buy a bug spray that will wipe them out. However, in a course of a few weeks you will notice that spray that used to kill the bugs if they got near it becomes completely in-effective even when sprayed directly on the bug. (funny how so many people in the south don't believe in evolution yet, observe it in their daily lives...)

Other, species are observed to evolve over a course of a few years. Especially in areas where we (humans) have changed the local environment. Some examples are round-up resistent coca plants, much to the dismay of the DEA. Also, changes have been observed in birds, fish, and small mammals in areas where forest has been replaced with farms or urban development.

I agree with you that we really don't know how we humans are changing because the speed of evolution tends to be pretty relative to the species undergoing it. And even though we have removed natural selection, there are still people born with mutations, and they continue to have children (for better or worse). These genes are mixing into the gene pool.

Humans evolution is now at a really interesting state. We are one of the few species where the vast majority of the population have the opportunity to reproduce, and the vast majority of our offspring live to do the same. Combine this with ongoing mutations where those with both beneficial and harmful changes survive and reproduce. I don't think anyone can imagine the direction our species will go.

Geniuses, autistics, athlethes and diabetics are surviving and reproducing. We may have some interesting times ahead

Re:evolution is _slow_?

[Paradise Pete]

there is a hug problem with cockroaches.

That's odd. You'd think it would be easy, what with them having six arms and all.

representatives

[willCode4Beer.com]

if you don't know what your representative stands for, then you have no business electing them to represent you

I for one, want a representative that sets his/her owns views and beliefs aside and represents mine. A representative has no business standing up for his own beliefs while he is representing.

College doesn't equal intelligence!

[kabocox]

I hate to break it to all my fellow slashdotters, but a BS, MS, or PHD doesn't make you more intelligent than a HS dropout that works as an McDonald's Manager making 30-40K and has 4-5 kids.

Evolution is a process. It doesn't freaking select anything! ID may freaking select something. You have to prove an enity of actually meddling with humanity though to bring up ID though. We could invent some AI that lives in nano-bio-virsus that we inject into everyone and it subtly could control us or aliens could be meddling with us. When God decides to let the basic rules decide it is evolution.

I'd be curious about how humanity has evolved in the last 3000 years. Attendance at educational environments beyond HS or middle school do not show that US humans have evolved to be smarter than those that don't have that educational system in place.

What it does show is that those in attendance to any educational environments beyond HS produce vastly reduced numbers of offspring than those that didn't attend these environments. Attendance at an educational institution has no relation to an individual's intelligence.

What would be interesting is seeing a graphs of occupation and/or income vs number of childern. Hint: those that have less than 2 children are being selected against. Heck, put one up showing different religions vs number of childern or even number of toliets vs number of childern that would trully show a family stress level.

Evolution doesn't even care about numbers though. As long as we muddle through and reproduce and survive that's all that is needed.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

True, in a "zug zug" / "duh... football" world, most /. people wouldn't make it much past the mouth of the cave. So yes, we wouldn't make it to procreation age, one would imagine.

Yet, my point is more focused on invitro fertilization, making those who physically can't procreate, can. But you do make a valid point, and I am slicing my view of "nature" and "natural" fairly thin I suppose. But I'll make a point I made in another post...

So say you have a genetic heart defect that is surgically repaired (no worries, we have the technology). You pass those traits onto your offspring just like you pass on your blue eyes or brown hair. Now, they simply get their heart defect patched up, but their mother passed blood that doesn't properly coagulate, complicating the surgery.

But I "...forgot that technology and civilization has all but removed natures influence on mankind. The original "intent" or reason for selection was to select for DNA that deals with nature efficiently. Alas, nowadays, no one needs..." a heart that pumps blood! Oh, wait...

At some point I believe you'll end up with more holes then cheese.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Distinguished Hero]

If you can procreate and don't, you are an evolutionary dead end. It doesn't matter how good your own genes are; not procreating is the equivalent of being born completely sterile (so that even the best of modern medicine cannot help you get it on). In other words, you failed life (from a Darwinian perspective) because you never passed on your genes. Evolution is about the propagation of genes that are best suited to the current environment. No propagation, no evolution. If you have 1 child, and you take very good care of it and it survives to procreate, you and your child have succeded. If some other guy has 10 children, but they all die because he's a 'tard, you are more successful than he is; however, if you don't have any children, you are exactly as successful as he is (from a Darwinian perspective).

Take human A, living in a culture that prohibts birth control, who is also a lousy farmer. Loaded with testerstron, he soon has 10 kids. Because he sucks so bad at farming one year his harvest failes.
Then, liberals and international socialists in your goverment hear about this, use the money that they have aquired solely through the threat of force (taxation) from those who are skilled and motivated enough to generatate capital, and ship it pronto over there. All of human A's children survive, and he lives to have 10 more. Human B still has 1 kid because of the same reason as before, and he doesn't benefit from all the aid at all. Now, the population of this country is best suited to the environment you have created (taking handouts from the West) in accordance with the rules of Darwinism; however, now the West has to constantly feed these people because only 1/21 people can actually do anything besides live on Western welfare. When China kicks the economic feces out of the West and the West is no longer able to keep these people on life support, 20/21 of them would die; however, they will probably riot, kill the 1/21 of them who actually knows how to farm (the offspring of human B), and redistribute his wealth. Since they killed him and took all his wealth, he is no longer able to generate any more wealth, and the economy now becomes a zero sum game because it consists solely of parasites.

Sad but probably true. It always amazes me that liberals and socialists are so passionate about having evolution taught in the public indoctrination centers (schools) but then never bother to apply the principles of evolution to anything. Knowledge which is never applied is useless. (Much like good genes that are never passed on.)

Oh yes! Someday we will all look like this!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://blaklion.best.vwh.net/images/UniMind.jpg

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Distinguished Hero]

How the hell is human evolution slow compared to human lifetimes? If an epidemic spreads that has a 100% mortality rate unless you have the rare mutation that makes you immune to it, all the people without the mutation die instantly, leaving only those with what was previously a rare random mutation. Sure, other selective pressures may be a bit less apparent, but "survival of the fittest" is never slow. Each generation, only those properly adapted to their environment survive and go on to procreate. What exactly is slow about that?

designed intelligence?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can this be right? At least in America, brains would not evolve, they would be re-designed intelligently.

Nope

[Moraelin]

Nope, nerds have always existed, but only in the second half of the 20'th century it's become unfashionable to be one.

Probably the apogee of nerddom was ancient Greece, where a full third of the population were full time nerds between wars. (In wars, they also served as soldiers.) I'm pretty sure it didn't put them outside the reproduction pool, because that were all the free males in their society. If those didn't reproduce, you'd be left with only the slaves after one generation.

Between that and, say, the explosion of arts, philosophy and sciences in the 19'th century, we're talking some thousands of years in a row when it was actually cool to be educated and to _think_. It also offered some very clear survival advantages.

The problem was being able to afford it, not being uncool to be one. Hence the explosion in the 19'th century, when it started being affordable for more and more people.

The broken culture in which learning is uncool, and being a skinny airhead or a dumb jock are the only real achievements, is a 20'th century invention. With less and less actual penalties or risks for being uneducated and/or stupid, it became more and more viable to set one's target very very low. Why bother learning for college, when you can survive just as well on a McDonalds or WalMart wage? So unsurprisingly, most people did set their aim low and hit even lower.

And the culture changed to reflect just that majority point of view: aiming any higher isn't worth the effort, and if you do make the effort, there must be something wrong with your head.

That's all. That's the anomaly, and it's not periodic.

Re:It's remarkable how wrong....no, we are wrong.

[tooth]

Ever notice in an anthill, only a small percentage of the bees actually reproduce.

Errr, no, never.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

your example strengthens my argument. Inbreds problems aren't that they can't reproduce. They can't survive. This is the selection process in action. Your mythicistic attitue doesn't aid you in getting it either. Nature doesn't *want* to do anything. You either do (adapt) or you die. Mankind said thousands of years ago: screw nature, we'll have civlization. That is an improvement. Civilization is the new nature and human genes are selected for according how well adapted they are to civlization. This includes tool use. It does not include anything that can be 'fixed' by tool use. If you refuse to use tools you won't make head way. If you attempt to force others to not use tools, you'll get laughed out of our cities and be left to starve in the wilderness.

POOR does not equal STUPID

[miro2]

Many of the responses to this story say that stupid people breed with stupid people, and reproduce more than smart people. I'm curious what evidence this is based on. There is plenty of evidence that poor people reproduce more than rich people. But where is the evidence that poor people are stupid?

Intelligence undoubtedly plays as big a role in survival as it always has. Yes, medicine reduces the selective pressure, but it does not eliminate it. There are plenty of opportunities throughout our lives to make choices that would result in our death, and both rich and poor make such choices all the time.

Re:POOR does not equal STUPID

[MikeFM]

I never said POOR equaled STUPID. I came from a poor family but my parents were intelligent and I'm more intelligent than either of them. Being intelligent doesn't mean you give a damn about earning money.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

Then, liberals and international socialists in your goverment hear about this ...

Woah! How did this get here? I mean, I'm a libertarian so obviously debate politics a lot but there really is no need to drag it into a debate on this topic. The rest of the post is exactly my sentiment. Problem is: the OP thinks that procreation should only occure in the natural way. In my opinion, the natural way is version alpha 0.01. We could do better, but thats an other topic all together. Point stands: doesn't matter how you do it, if you do it, you win at evolution :)

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Gulthek]

Dammit, evolution is a REACTION not a progression. That'll teach me to post without coffee. But did you read the read of my post which clearly argues the other point (which I intended to make)?

Did you not read about sickle-cell anemia and malaria?

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. "Flaws" according to evolution are mismatches between environment and species. While we can modify the environment to some extent, it still acts on us and we become the "perfect" species to suit it. We can't not!

But if we start to impose an artifical "natural" environment to further progress toward a more perfect being then we are only setting ourselves down an artifical evolutionary path.

Imagine the species as one human, in a room with hundreds of doors. Each door leads toward a particular evolutionary development. (Keeping it simple, obviously this would be more like an interconnected labyrinth.) The more diversity we have, the more doors we have. If WE choose to fuck with evolution by selecting for things that WE consider more perfect (smarter, stronger, less disease in our understanding) then WE start to walk through doors and close off areas that may be necessary someday.

It is in our best interest to keep as many doors as possible.

Now YOU are perfectly able (indeed, heavily encouraged by nature) to practice genetic selection of your mate for your own progeny. But no one is capable of predicting what genetic variances that the species will need in the millions of years to come.

This doesn't surprise me in the least

[kilodelta]

With every generation homo sapiens becomes less like sapiens and more like superior.

And it isn't just brain size that's been growing, but as was indicated genetic resistance to disease, etc.

Who know, maybe the premise that the captors of the 4400 isn't so far off.

I mean, most people describe the greys as humanoid in shape, with large heads and eyes, no nose but nasal openings, and a very narrow mouth.

I mean, in case anyone hadn't read about it, they've figured out that the human jaw is getting more narrow because more of our food is processed before we eat it.

But I've gone off in 'what if' territory here for too long.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[StalinsNotDead]

Why should KY be excluded ? Lubrication is built into humans and has been for ever.

When I first read the grandparent's comment, I thought "what's so special about Kentucky?"

Your interpretation makes a lot more sense.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

well, if technology can't help you to, you know, not die, the point is mood. No 'dumping down' of the gene pool has occured because the organism in question is, well, dead. There is however no connection between 'unability to survive' and 'unability to reproduce'. In your example, two humans could reproduce and the offspring still dies because his genes aren't fit enough. I'm just saying that two humans who reproduce through technological aids don't confer any disadvantages to their offspring.

put parent at the top....

[chicago_bulls]

and end the discussion.

how is this post only "2, Informative", but the one it's replying to is "5, Insightful"?

intelligence doesn't have anything to do with wealth. if everybody had an IQ of 200, guess what, there would still be poor people!
and, if everybody had an IQ of 65, there would still be rich people!

society wouldn't improve if everybody was smarter, didn't you people see this...

http://www.thesimpsons.com/episode_guide/1022.htm

Re:put parent at the top....

[ChrisMaple]

if everybody had an IQ of 200

Since IQ is a measure of deviation from the average, your supposition is impossible.

Re:put parent at the top....

[hesiod]

> didn't you people see this

I wouldn't think it's a good idea to base your opinion of scientific concepts off of The Simpsons.

Re:put parent at the top....

[drwho]

intelligence doesn't have anything to do with wealth. if everybody had an IQ of 200, guess what, there would still be poor people! and, if everybody had an IQ of 65, there would still be rich people!

You don't seem to know what IQ means. It stands for Intelligence Quotient, i.e. a ratio, times one hundred. It's the intelligence of the subject in relation to others of the same age. Let's put aside the question of whether intelligence can be measured for a moment, and just assume that something is being measured, and for the sake of convenience we're going to call it intelligence. So, it is not possible for 'everyone' to have an IQ of 65 or 200, because it's a ratio.

It's also interesting to note the factoring of age in to IQ. I am pretty sure that those of us who run around waving IQ test results showing and IQ for 150, are probably using an old test. There's a n upper limit to the ability of the tests to measure intelligence, so while a person tested at age ten may have a result of a 150 IQ, the same person tested at 25 and coming up at 115 hasn't become dumber (well, maybe they have, but that's unlikely), but the test is taking the age change into account.

So, if you want your kids to be able to get into MENSA, have them repeatedly tested at early ages!

But in one sense I do agree with what you are saying, sort of. IQ and wealth are both relative to other people. Yet, there is a part to the idea of wealth that is absolute: A French King of the fifteenth century might look upon the posessions of the middle class American of today and feel poor by comparison, because of the tools we now have that even a King of old could not get. This type of societal wealth is often well illustrated in Science Fiction stories where a modern person goes back in time and impresses the powerful people of that era with something commonplace in our own, such as a cigarette lighter or flashlight.

Ceci n'est pas une .sig

Re:put parent at the top....

[operagost]

intelligence doesn't have anything to do with wealth. if everybody had an IQ of 200, guess what, there would still be poor people!
and, if everybody had an IQ of 65, there would still be rich people!

society wouldn't improve if everybody was smarter, didn't you people see this...

Whil I don't agree with the Ayn Rand-ish, eugenic implications of this thread; I must point out that while wealth is finite and there will probably always be poor people, this doesn't mean intelligence doesn't have anything to do with wealth. If you have two societies where everyone has the same IQ, obviously intelligence is meaningless and wealth will be determined by other factors. Your statement is useless because the best way to determine the effect of intelligence on wealth is through the empirical observation of multiple societies.

That being said, the hypothesis you state in the last line of your post is quite valid, but you can't "prove" it with sweeping assumptions.

Re:put parent at the top....

[Miaowara_Tomokato]

If everybody had an IQ of 200, everyone would have an IQ of 100.

Leaving the inherent flaws of the scale out of it, isn't IQ a variable scale, where 100 IQ points is the mean IQ, and every 15 points represents one standard deviation from that mean? i.e., only 16% of population has IQ over 115, only 2% over 130, approximately .1 over 145?

Re:put parent at the top....

[naasking]

I must point out that while wealth is finite [...]

I'm sorry, but where is the evidence to back up this assertion? Unless you are implying that wealth must be finite simply because the resources contained within the entire universe are finite, I'm not sure your statement is supported by any economics that I've heard of. And even if you are saying that, we're a heck of a long way off from depleting the wealth of the universe. We're not even close to depleting the wealth that can be extracted from our own planet.

Inequitable distribution of resources

[MichaelPenne]

Inequitable distribution of resources might explain part of the problem. Are the folks in the trailer part with 12 kids stupid or did they just lack access to educational resources (or grow up in a subculture where education was not a priority)?

Folks that appear dumb to highly educated DINCs might actually be quite intelligent, but using their intelligence differently (like trying to figure out how to feed, clothe, and raise 12 kids while still sticking around for their lives).

Or they may have substance abuse problems due to genetics and/or environment, it's certainly clear that intelligent people may have other problems that keep them from appearing successful in the mainstream culture.

It certainly is clear that the rewards of mainstream culture come easier to those who limit the number of children they have, however I don't think it is clear that mainstream cultural rewards correlate reliably with raw intelligence at this time.

E.g. 'smart' vs 'stupid' is not an objective measure of genetic intelligence, rather it contains a large component of culture: they are stupid because they are different vs. they are stupid because they lack processing power & RAM.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Gulthek]

Fuck, my main point. Obliterated by my irritation.

Evolution is a REACTION , not a progression.

While my argument clearly indicates that I meant to say thus, most people will only read the first line. And most people won't read this correction. Yay.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[master_p]

Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?

Since we are on /., the right question should be:

Ever tried to have sex?

Patented the Genes?

[Morgalyn]

From another article on the same topic:

The team is so sure of its hunch that it has patented the genes with plans to develop tests to identify those who carry these potentially brain-boosting traits -- which appear to be more prevalent in some populations than others.

Could someone please explain to me how you can patent a gene? Or why its even possible to do so?

Dumb people have more kids.

[popo]

Smart people have fewer.

If the human brain is evolving, its probably doing a 180 right about now and heading back to chimp land.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Distinguished Hero]

I live in Canada. I listen to the state owned TV station, state owned radio station, pay exorbitant taxes, go get my healthcare at public institutions because private ones are illegal (that's right), watch CNN because anything slightly to the right of it (e.g. Fox News I take it) was banned by our media overlords until last year, and will probably be banned again, read the Toronto Star, live under the Liberal Party (ultra-socialists), the NDP (ultra-ultra-socialists), the Bloc (regional ultra-socialists), and the Conservative Party (socialists), talk almost exclusively to rabid socialists, used to be a socialist myself (because I never heard an alternative viewpoint), etc.

Before coming to Canada, I used to live in a Socialist Republic in Eastern Europe. Anyways, sufficed to say, my life has always been dominated by socialists, and it's a constant chip on my shoulder.

Do You Have Any Kids?

[MikeyTheK]

NEWS FLASH: Moms stop nursing BEFORE ONE YEAR. Do you know why? BECAUSE KIDS GROW TEETH AT AROUND SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS! I've got...oh crap...many...children. The kids that didn't ween themselves got forced off Mom because nursing hurts like hell anyway (especially with some kids, who just can't figure it out, or are so hungry all the time that they are feeding almost constantly, resulting in lots of sores on Mama), and once kids have teeth it's unbelievably painful.
So four years is WAY past the time when Mom would be done with them already.

Re:Do You Have Any Kids?

[Ihlosi]

NEWS FLASH: Humans are not the only mammals on the planet. Some mammals are actually _born_ with their permanent teeth.

Also, not everyone's a biter.

The gene also causes lactose intolerance for the rest of the life, preventing the individual to reacquire a habit of consuming milk

Re:Do You Have Any Kids?

[MikeyTheK]

Humans are not the only mammals on the planet.
The article is about humans, as is my reply.
Just as a side note before I go into the physiology, are you actually aware of any children anywhere in the world being breast fed at age two? Howabout three? The answer is, of course "no". Before lactose intolerance can even become an issue, it's already irrelevant. That's the point.

I don't disagree that there are babies that aren't biters. However, even for nonbiters, physiology makes it almost impossible that baby will ever make it to age 1 still nursing. Granted, baby can bite Mommy with the soft palette, but that's a different story, and isn't what I was referring to, anyway. Baby's mouth is very small, even at that age. However, Mommy's nipple is huge at that point. It, like the rest of the breast, is engorged. Nipples will grow to about 250% of their diameter (or so - 200% to, well, you can imagine). Baby takes the entire nipple into his/her mouth, as well as most of the areola to suck.
The problem for baby is that two things happen: 1) As baby's mouth grows in diameter, mommy's nipple is drawn further in, which means that mommy's nipple is now in danger of being squeezed, bitten, or pinched by baby's palette. Before baby has teeth (and essentially zero biting force), this is not much of an issue. After baby has teeth, the space that was previously clear for mommy's nipple is now occupied (and those suckers are SHARP!), and mommy gets sore. 2) Even without teeth, as baby grows, baby needs longer periods of nursing, and in cases where mommy doesn't produce adequate milk or baby is growing quickly, baby nurses more frequently, or mommy needs to feed baby both breasts instead of just one. So, mommy doesn't get several hours to heal any more. She might get just two, or in extreme cases, just one. Mommy bleeds, or gets sore, or whatever, and ultimately baby gets force-weened.

Re:No Welfare?! Check out 'dependents'

[mfrank]

It's pretty obvious you don't have children. The tax break for having a kid doesn't come anywhere close to compensating you for the cost of a child.

If you have a problem with that (or with property taxes), keep in mind who's going to be paying for what little Social Security income you get when you retire. And who's going to be wiping the drool off your face.

Devolving?

[DarthVain]

Just something I thought about once and awhile. I myself am pretty blind, I also have a number of other genetic 'issues'.

With the advent of medicine and civilization over say the last 5000 years or so, could we actually be devolving.

What I mean is that darwinism and procreation but in a negitive context. That is I am pretty sure if I lived back in Unga Bunga days I would last about 6 seconds before being killed, thus not reproducing.

If this is the case, and our civilizations become more advanced and allow more people to live than otherwise wouldn't, won't this have a negitive effect upon our evolution?

I know its very SciFi, but eventually having people bourn crippled and proped up by science, technology, and medical expertise? I guess at somepoint scientist might be able to figure out (play god in the truest sense), and bascially custom make babies before they are bourn (perhaps even concived), making so called 'perfect' babies, or only introduting a limited amount of variation.

I don't mean to be crass but I wonder if there were as many people with crappy eyesight long ago, or respritory illness, or diabities, or any genetic problems, palsy, deformations, etc.... Could it be we are promoting these thing inadvertantly?

Anyway just something to think about. I don't see any real solution, and any solution involves some real moral questions no matter what. Taking the reigns of our evolutional developement is the basic "playing god" kinda thing, which for good or bad it happening now, and will continue no matter what into the future.

On the lighter side, with the proliferation of Hair implants for men, making bald men more suitable mates, and this altering our evolutionalry course. Will that mean that in the future all men will be bald?

No Spelling Nazi's please, I can't be bothered to go back and spellcheck for a fourm entry.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Distinguished Hero]

Sorry for another reply, but I forgot to make a point. When the Western economy implodes because the Western worker is uncompetitive, the West has no comparative advantage, and the Chinese can do everything better, faster, and cheaper, and Western socialism implodes, the environment is going to change rapidly to something far closer to "the natural way" and almost all of population is not going to be well adapted (much like the Dinosaurs) because of our reliance on high tech medicine. Evolution will correct this of course, but I certainly don't want to be around when that happens.

Human Selective Pressures

[Chemosky]

This post brings back a memory of the most ignorant statement I've ever heard a college professor make. The professor asked the question of the class (a history class), "Have humans undergone evolution?" He answered his own question, "No". I was completely dumbfounded and sat with my mouth agape trying to comprehend what just happened. Not one person in the class even batted an eyelash to this statement. I was in too much shock to start a debate. Bringing this post on-topic, I think about what selective pressures have been influencing the human species. First off, some assumptions:

• Evolution may be defined as a change in the frequency and types of genes in the human population through natural selection.
• The human races (caucasian, austronesian, khoisan, pygmy, black) have genetic diversity both between races and within races.*

Ok, based on the above assumptions here are some thoughts:

• Races developed genetic differences over time due to populations adapting to the resources and their endemic environment.
• Genocide: cutting out a large chunk of a population (may be based on race) in a short time, i.e. U.S. genocide of native americans.
• Disease: Social virii such as AIDS, that some portion of a population may have genetic resistance to. Or proximity to herds of domesticated animals, exposing populations to mutated animal diseases, eventually developing treatment or possibly genetic resistance, e.g. europeans infecting native american populations with diseases the europeans developed treatment for.

These seem to be macro or large scale pressures, what about some minor, subtle selective pressures? BTW, IANASD (I am not a Social Darwinist). It may not be PC these days to talk about genetic differences between races, realistically, there are differences, and it's ok to want to know what brought about those differences, from a scientific point of view.

*Human races taken from Guns, Germs, and Steel

You are confusing poor with stupid

[GojiraDeMonstah]

In the US, lower class people are doing just about that. It is the top half of the income distribution that is failing to do its duty by replacing itself in the next generation.

So income makes people smart? If you are low income, and thus "not smart" by what I'm inferring by your post, do you somehow become smart if you win the lottery?

Now I would concede that intelligent people tend to have better careers. But I'm sure there are plenty of brilliant professors making less than successful used car salespeople. Careful observation even shows that there are even leaders of major western countries who owe everything to family connections rather than intelligence or education.

Re:You are confusing poor with stupid

[Xentor]

Careful observation even shows that there are even leaders of major western countries who owe everything to family connections rather than intelligence or education.

I couldn't have said it better myself...

Let me guess...

[nusuth]

You are totally broke, aren't you?

Re:Missing acidolphilis and other friendly bacteri

[Maxo-Texas]

"Whole foods" sells enteric (sp?) coated "gut" pills so they survive your stomach acid.

Couple years ago I had an illness that seemed to specifically target my gut bugs. I felt vaguely ill after eating and it would go through me not fully digested.

It took me a few weeks to figure it out but after I took the friendly bug pills for a few days the problem cleared up. Actually they almost cleared up completely the first day.

It is an issue for anyone that takes antibiotics- and it applies to female parts as well (yeast infections easier if you don't have friendly bugs).

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Paradise Pete]

My definition of "fitness"

Well you don't get to define it. Evolution does. You can maybe look back afterward and see what it was, but that's about it.

It's remarkable how wrong YOU are

[spun]

Evolution is not directed, it does not progress. It merely ensures the survival of the fittest, and if being more intelligent no longer makes you more fit, that does not preclude evolution. Also, evolution works on vast scales and tiny percentages. Are you saying that being more intelligent doesn't convey even a .005% greater chance of procreating? Even if only one in a million stupid people forget to look both ways at a streetcorner and get creamed by a bus, evolution still has a chance to select for people that are smart enough to look both ways at street corners.

Civilization has not and CAN NOT remove the engine that drives the evolution of species. It can change the way it works, what is selected for and what is unimportant but it can't remove it. Moreso, I feel that it hasn't even changed it that much. Stupid people (not uneducated, but actually dumb) are slightly less likely to reproduce, and that's all it takes for evolution to work.

I find it ironic that you pontificate about others not understanding evolution when you clearly do not understand it yourself.

Never ascribe to stupidity...

[Anonymous Coward]

...what can be attributed to lack of evolution.

Of course, that doesn't explain why all the stupid guys get the chicks. Evolution is supposed to weed them out! Out I say!

attitude and welfare

[Creepy]

part of it is attitude

before welfare reform in the US, there was the smart person attitude of "I'm too poor to have more kids" and dumb people attitude of "I gets me sum more welfare money if I has dem kids"

now all those big families before welfare reform want big families of their own just because it doesn't feel like a family without a swarm of kids around.

Unfortunately, these days, I think you're right, it's not stupid people that are breeding, but far too often it's religious people (and I think many of these people lack free thinking - like that silly Catholic belief that dogs don't dream and the devil makes them twitch in REM sleep... shah, right - that's as inane as the Jehovah's Witnesses age of the earth and dinosaur bones were placed there by satan - who makes up this stuff?).

Re:attitude and welfare

[japhmi]

ike that silly Catholic belief that dogs don't dream and the devil makes them twitch in REM sleep..

Uhh... WTF? Maybe someone who was Catholic said something like that once, but it's not a 'Catholic belief' and NOT Catholic teaching.

But, on your point, people may decide to have many children for a variety of reasons, regardless of religion or intelligence. You seem to be sterotyping here.

Re:Theory or God?? Nope Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[idsofmarch]

The Bible is wrong, it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Miracles=Noodly Appendage
Mother Theresa=Marinara Sauce of His Holy Writ
Modern Medicine says a person will die...a priest comes and the person wakes up?=Person was sleeping, annoying priest woke him up?

wow

[Anonymous Coward]

what a retarded "discovery"

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Maxo-Texas]

Then we need a new word. Because there are many atheists who -believe- there is no god. They have "faith" that there is no god.

It's pretty common actually.

OTH, in my experience, People that call themselves agnostics more typically talk about a lack of belief.

The medium is the message..

[kilgore2]

Marshall McLuhan, of course...Quite a while ago. There is a more complete article here: http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/lif e_sciences/report-38309.html From Robert Logan's "The Extended Mind Model of the Origin of Language and Culture" "The evolution of notated language has lessons that can help us understand the origin and emergence of speech. In a study of notated language (McLuhan and Logan 1977; Logan 1986) the effects of the phonetic alphabet and literacy on the development of deductive logic, abstract science, codified law, and monotheism were revealed. We showed that these five developments, which emerged between the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers and the Aegean Sea between 2000 and 500 BC, formed an autocatalytic set of ideas that supported each other's development. The alphabet not only served as a convenient way to notate speech it also taught the lessons of analysis (breaking up words into their basic phonemes), coding (writing), decoding (reading) and classification (alphebetization). From this work emerged the notion that language is both a medium of communication and an informatic tool since the structure of a language influences the way in which people organize information and develop ideas. This work led to the hypothesis that speech, writing, math, science, computing and the Internet represented six independent languages each with its own unique semantics and syntax (Logan 1995; 2000a). It was shown that these six forms of language formed an evolutionary chain of languages with each new language emerging from the previous forms of language as a bifurcation to a new level of order à la Prigogine in response to an information overload that the previous set of languages could not handle." So now we are finally linking the structural (genetic) changes that must accompany the intellectual changes. Why is everyone so scared of this? Because behaviour might (gasp) be largely genetically encoded?

Re:The medium is the message..

[kid_oliva]

Of course, if behavior is largely encoded, then the way I act is not my fault. I am wired this way. WOW, that is uhhh... let's just say your ability to lose is only superceded by your lack of ability to win.

Re:The medium is the message..

[GagnierA]

It's an obvious theory to me that the brain (and other aspects of human nature) would still be evolving. One of the principle codes of evolution and paleoanthropology is that things are constantly changing, and with the presentation of individual facts and findings that humans have evolved from "lesser equiped" sapiens such as the neandertal for example.

To understand evolution, you have to know how it works. Any mutation must be applied to a DNA coding that already exists. It can not be applied to coding that does not exist. Is this a silly statement? Not at all. It leads to the way that evolution changes an organism. Mutations are always applied to the existing DNA coding. Evolution makes something new out of something that already exists. If a bear becomes distressed in a given environment, it does not sprout wings and fly. Instead, such things as longer legs or claws will be tested. Also, evolution often does not fix the thing that causes a problem, it patches the problem by doing something unrelated. If an organism suffers a mutation that shortens its life so that it has difficulty rearing its children to childbearing age, that mutation will start being culled from the gene pool. Before that mutation has been completely removed from the gene pool, another mutation may occur which shortens the gestation period or child development period. If this shortens the child caring requirements enough so that the shortened life is no longer a problem, then both mutations would be acceptable as permanent residents in the gene pool.

One must remember that every cell in the human body can perform any function. Two copies of the entire genome are in every cell. A cell that is in the liver chooses to do that function. The cells in bone or in the brain choose to do those functions. When a mutation happens, it is either to the inner function of a cell, or to the size and shape of the overall cell structure (such as a skull, heart, etc.).

Using language as an example to promote the idea of human brain evolution is a good example for the common layman, but it doesn't even begin to touch on the basis and main concepts of the topic; however, that's beside the point.

Moreover, it's common knowledge within the medical feild (and other related sectors) that behaviour IS, in fact, coded....just not genetically. Behaviour has never been a characteristic for genetics, it's more of an entity in it's own right (but still obviously stored in the brain). It's strongly believed and heavily documented that every aspect of a person's life is profoundly affected in the early stages of childhood going into their early teens. For example, if a female is raised in an environment with an abusive father (or father-figure), later in life she'll subconsciously be attracted to the "bad boy" type and will unintentionally repeat that abusive cycle with her children. On the same note, if that same child is raised in a loving, healthy, and positively stimulating environment she'll be more likely to live a successful and fulfilling life.

Moreover, that's not to say that all hope is lost for the first life scenario outlined above. There are many services available to those people who recognize that they have a problem that needs to be fixed (such as AlaTeen and other such 12 step programs) in order for them to survive. The sooner the problem is recognized, the better.

In conclusion, I would just like to state that life on our planet has been evolving and improvising itself over millions of years. Just because the human race has gained the capacity to recognize many of these patterns, that doesn't mean that everything involved with the process will suddenly stop dead in it's tracks...and remember, man is not an intelligent being. He is, instead, an instinctive being with intelligence.

By typing and thinking about this topic, I've come to realize that there are an endless amount of tangents (and even perpendiculars for that matter) that can be brought to the table...but alas, despite the fact that I haven't said everything I wanted and intended to say, I'm going to wrap this up now.

Re:China's agriculture "fairly opitimal" for a lon

[king-manic]

time?

You had better ask all those tens of millions that starved just a couple of generations ago, and the hundreds of millions that are still impoverished today.

You can still see the effects of WWII in Japan tody, where I live. People born in that era are far shorter than people younger than them - a clear sign of poor nutrition. Young Japanese are close to the same height as Americans, as far as I can tell.

Also, the Flynn effect seems to be leveling off in advanced countries, which is perfectly consistent with the nutrition model, for reasons you noted.
[ Reply to This ]

Temporally local and short. The starvation in china was due to gross incompetence of the administration and last a decade before the ruling party was disposed by another group.

The average height still differs because the genetics of the groups are different, nothern chinese are close to the average height of americans but southern chinese are not. Japanese people still seem shorter from the exchange students I've met but both our anicdotes needs some stats to back it up.

In either case IQ doesn't seem to correlate since the 2nd highest IQ ethnicity is east asian (chinese vietnamese japanese korean). They are close to the ashkenazi jews and signifigantly higher then caucasians who generally had better nutrition during the 50's and 60's.

just wait until you grow up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how that perception changes when you actually become an adult... ;^)

12-year olds always think they are smarter than adults, until they have to actually be responsible for consequences of something important (e.g., keeping the roof over some heads, or some bellies full when the employment market goes south)...

We do not mutate. This is why sex evolved.

[Praxiteles]

Mutating in response to threats is not what I was taught in medical school or in biology.

When there is a threat, we do *not* mutate. We are *selected*.

For example, if suddenly tomorrow an Ice Age kicked in - your genes would not mutate. If you had a child, his or her genes would not be mutated.

Instead, people with the most amount of body hair, or those better able to find shelter, would be "selected" to survive. Twenty generations later, we might have a race of hairy people.

You may be surprised to learn that the mathematics of genetics (and artificial life simulations) have conclusively demonstrated that mutation is estimated to account for only a *tiny* fraction evolutionary change (many simulations show less than 1%). Mutation is almost universally destructive.

Chromosomal crossing over during meiosis, where the greatest swap of DNA occurs (between mother and father), accounts for almost all of evolutionary genetic change. This is why sex evolved.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Minna Kirai]

My definition of "fitness" is the ability to procreate without the help of technology - medical or otherwise

So, you are making up your own words unlike those used in the English language or by biologists in particular. If you wanted to invent your own language, don't make it sound so much like the one other people already use.

If you can't do that yourself, or could not have lived to an age to do that yourself, yes I believe you're a detriment to the gene pool (Darwin-isticially speaking).

That is emphatically and obviously false, unless you have some reason to believe that reproductive assistance technology will become less available in the future.

I am simply supporting the idea that evolution has, for all intents and purposes, stopped in the human population due to these factors.

No, you are NOT supporting that idea. You are claiming that evolution is now moving in a direction (technology required for reproduction) which you don't like.

You think that's a negative change? Fine- but it's still a CHANGE, which is all that "evolution" means.

Maybe someday the human male will evolve with internal testicles so the sperm is impotent without artificial cooling. That idea may disgust you, but it's an example of (potential) evolution.

What about reincarnation?

[kpang]

If they've proved that the brain is still evolving then I think I just discovered the scientific proof for reincarnation. Bush couldn't have gotten *this* stupid in one lifetime.

Re:What about reincarnation?

[chawly]

In my opinion Mr. Bush's stupidity has nothing to do with reincarnation. I'll believe that the brain is still evolving for most of the gene pool. The Bush family gene pool has simply forked from the main-stream pool and, since then, evolves no more. The fork occurred 9 centuries before the birth of Christ. Today, they are the exception which proves the rule - and you know there has to be one. Though it is a pity that a person so afflicted has become president of the most powerful nation in the world.

What a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have a 60,000 year old brain to compare it to. Until they do, this is nothing but a theory and theories are not truth.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[composer777]

I would still say that intelligence helps in reproductive success, and that whatever other traits we might be losing, we will keep getting smarter for quite some time. As long as we keep getting smarter, the other traits will eventually become moot. As far as other traits go, well, that was a losing battle the first day our ancestors discovered that fire and animal clothing was a better way to keep warm than waiting for evolution to grow fur.

Mod UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't laughed this much for a long time.
Any moderators out there??

Here's how

[ifwm]

1. Because that's what he said.
2. Because I'm smarter than you.
3. Because I can read for context, and understand main ideas
4. Again, because I'm smarter than you.

Have a nice day!

Easy now...

[FatSean]

I make enough money that I won't be getting any social security by the time I retire. Good thing I'm investing on my own, huh?

I never said anything about it 'covering' the cost of raising a child. Government assistance for the poor doesn't completely replace a decent job either.

off to the cupboard w/ you, its past your bedtime

[jahudabudy]

Wow, someone gets quite cranky when his own words are thrown in his face. If you look at the parts of YOUR comment and HIS comment that I quoted, it is pretty obvious that what YOU paraphrased is NOT what he said, the contextual meaning is slightly different. He makes NO reference to money's impact on a gene's survival, merely on it's lack of impact on a gene's "hardiness". See, in the context of the thread, and the rest of his comment, he is saying that a gene for, say, transmuting lead into gold that also caused the person to be unable to properly break down protein would have, in the past, been contra-survival. You would probably not survive to procreate. Today, however, with the advances in modern medicine, having unlimited wealth overly compensates for a natural inability to break down protein. You can buy drugs that will enable you to live, and the extra wealth will allow for lots of procreation opportunities that a poor person that can break down protein just fine will not have.
But, I'm sure this is all obvious, since you are smarter than me. I mean, you said it twice and all, it must be true. :)

Re:I (don't) agree

[incom]

Exactly, recognizing the importance of having many children above the temptation of self indulgant materialism may be a different(and evolutionarily superior) type of intelligence. My great grandfather had one child, and was a mulit-millionaire(in the 20's which is hundreds of millions today) who owned a shitload of land. He was arguably very intelligent in business, but he had vices, and lost his fortune by running someone down with his car while drunk and paying out a shitload in the lawsuit. My grandfather(the ggf's one kid) on the other hand, was also very intelligent, but he chose to have alot of kids(9) and thus was always low on money paying for them, but this was his conscious choice. I'm trying to do both(money plus kids), and maybe I'll suceed being arguably much smarter than my predicessors, but it's a PITA to find a woman of good genes these days who will accept the pain and sacrifice of many births(womans lib sucks sometimes), may have to import me a willing and superior immigrant from a 3rd world country whose culture agrees with my views wrt children. This is what I call "larger consciousness", consciousness of your line, and even the species. Thinking of yourself alone will lead to extinction.

Re:Age of the universe is the problem for evolutio

[kid_oliva]

I like how when you bring up scientific fact it becomes flamebait. Truly people do not wish to try to find the truth whatever it may be. It is clear we do not understand even a tenth of the universe, but people go around like we understand all but 5%.

Re:off to the cupboard w/ you, its past your bedti

[Minna Kirai]

He makes NO reference to money's impact on a gene's survival, merely on it's lack of impact on a gene's "hardiness".

In this context, there is essentially no difference between "hardiness" and ability to survive. (Even in general usage, "hardiness" and "survivability" are virtually synonyms).

But, I'm sure this is all obvious, since you are smarter than me.

Well, yes it is quite obvious. And if you can't tell, that does strongly suggest you are less intelligent (or are prehaps writing in a non-native language, or otherwise disadvantaged to understand)

Re:off to the cupboard w/ you, its past your bedti

[jahudabudy]

In this context, there is essentially no difference between "hardiness" and ability to survive.
Well, that is pretty much the crux of the disagreement. I guess we would have to have the original poster elucidate to be sure, but the way I interpret his statement, he is NOT using "hardiness" as a synonym for "ability to survive". As in my example. I don't think very many people would say that a specimen that can't process vital nutrients out of food is hardier than a specimen that can; quite the opposite. However (and this is what I think the whole point was), this less hardy specimen has a possibly GREATER ability to survive in today's society, due to the somewhat artificial nature of the evolutionary pressures we have created for ourselves.

You should be careful about what is obvious and what is not. Maybe it is my inferior intellect, but I find the things that are "obvious" are most often simply more complex than I initially thought. But again, I'm sure a smart cookie like you doesn't have to worry about that :)

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[mdwh2]

Then we need a new word.

But why do we?

When it comes to anything else, such as ghosts, unicorns, aliens or fairies, it's simple: Do you believe in x? Yes or No, or perhaps Not Sure.

I never hear of people trying to distinguishing between "no belief in pixies" and "belief that pixies don't exist". I never hear people claiming that those who answer "No" have a belief, and therefore they require faith for that belief, or they are being irrational, or that their "belief" is a religion.

So why does it happen with the issue of God?

on the shortcomings of the beaver...

[randumspin]

Yeah a bird builds a nest. And moles dig holes and polar bears build igloos...but how much "control" does that show?? I say none, it shows the ability to manipulate the environment, sure...but for that matter microscopic organisms can change an entire planet. But thats not the point.

Ok, sure so you're chanting "beavers" at me. While I find the word beaver to be most humorous, I say they are not controlling, creating or constructing their environment so much as simply modifying pieces of it (like trees)...which had ALREADY naturally evolved there. No thanks to the beaver.

I stand by my original post about humans modifying their environment.

Take away the trees from beavers and what do they do? They sit around all day, or maybe they swim around in circles...confused as if they had needed to do something but had forgotten what it was. Show me a beaver, that in an environment lacking trees, combines polymers to form a synthetic trunk...which is used to construct a dam and reroute the river through a bypass. And make the damn dam hydroelectric too, and have it provide power for lights used to grow real trees in an artificial environment with the intent of making the process of building dams in that location self-sustainable.

Then maybe I'll do more than chuckle when I read these eager beaver posts.

Re:on the shortcomings of the beaver...

[hackstraw]

I say they are not controlling, creating or constructing their environment so much as simply modifying pieces of it (like trees)...which had ALREADY naturally evolved there. No thanks to the beaver. ... Take away the trees from beavers and what do they do?

My $200k house's walls and much of its insides are made from trees. My mailbox is full of dead tree material. I even wipe my ass with it.

Beavers are impressive.

Show me a beaver, that in an environment lacking trees, combines polymers to form a synthetic trunk...which is used to construct a dam and reroute the river through a bypass. And make the damn dam hydroelectric too, and have it provide power for lights used to grow real trees in an artificial environment with the intent of making the process of building dams in that location self-sustainable.

Excluding yourself, show me a human that can do all that.

ASPM looks very interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The Microcephalin, OK it's advantageous, but it was riding this huge expansion of homo sapiens into the rest of the world. It got a big boost by just coming along for the ride.

ASPM -- now that one's remarkable. Started somewhere between 14,100 and 500 years ago, most likely 5,800 years ago, and is now around 50% of Europe? I hear the British have 80% the same genetics as they did 12,000 years ago. So this variant has come to dominate, without a new group of people as a whole coming to dominate.

If 1 generation is 25 years, 5,800 years is 232 generations. There were around 10 million people total 5,800 years ago. 1.066^^232 = 3 million which would be 30% of the population at that time (or if the population increased uniformly, 30% of our population today). But that assumes carriers never marry carriers, which isn't close to true. People usually marry people from the same community. Any further expansion relies on the rare people who marry outside their community. So I'm guessing the relative reproductive advantage is quite a bit more than 6.6%, either that or it started longer than 5,800 years ago. If it started 14,100 years ago, when the total population was 3 million, the advantage just has to be way more than 2.5%.

500 years ago, with a population of 400 million, way more than 154%, no way. I'm guessing it's towards the 14,000 year end. But even so, these advantages are something big enough that people can see them without doing statistical studies. It's probably something you can tell about a person by looking at them or talking to them.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[handslikesnakes]

Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Invisible Pink Unicorns.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[kid_oliva]

It is a good thing you have no idea what you are talking about. Science is the study of the things of nature and if "God" created the Cosmos, then you should be able to find a "fingerprint" of a design. As the master himself said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Einstein http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24949.html

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Minna Kirai]

Then we need a new word.

Antitheist. You're welcome!

Because there are many atheists who -believe- there is no god.

It's far more common for an atheist to believe there is no God than that there is no god.

Capitalized "God" is a specific named individual (aka "Yahweh" or "Jehova" or "Jesus"), revered by at least 4 difference religions, and attributed with specific traits, some of which are mutually contradictory. Lowercase "god" is an individual of power greatly exceeding any human being, who may or may not be alleged to be virtuous, honest, or any of that.

Because "god" potentially includes evil tricksters, skeptics are more likely to call it an irrelevant concept instead of a demonstrably false one.

Punctuated Equilibrium

[Vagary]

Actually, the theory of Puncutated Equilibrium would happily say that our rate of evolution is currently low. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that the signs of selection found in the article occured in a period of socioenvironmental change?

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[nagora]

Science is the study of the things of nature and if "God" created the Cosmos, then you should be able to find a "fingerprint" of a design.

"If".

The problem is that if God didn't design the universe, and there's no reason to think a sane (or at least friendly) mind was involved, then science must be free to say so. Religion, as I said, is dogma and unpleasant truths are simply outlawed. Therefore, science and religion are polar opposites by their very nature. That's not to say that occassionally a religious work might not sometimes be right just by chance, just as with any work of fiction it's not all fairy stories, just most of it.

By the way, your signature is spelt incorrectly.

TWW

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[Anonymous Coward]

Blankets. Ever tried to have sex outside during the cold season without one ?

You must be new here... this is /.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[(negative video)]

Yes, evolution is slow. But in the Darwin definition of evolution by natural selection, when nearly 100% of the population that *choose* to procreate can and do, I find it hard to see how evolution by natural selection is still functioning on a level higher then "ever so slightly"

That's your error. Evolutionary advantage expands through the mackerel of compound interest. Let's work through a simplified example. Suppose we have two varieties of a gene. People with the first variety have an average reproduction rate of 1.08, while people with the other have a rate of 1.0908 (which is 1% larger). After 63 generations (around 1000 years), the first group will have increased its size by a factor of 128, while the second group will be 239 times larger!

That's an 87% advantage per millenia, for a piddling 1% reproductive advantage. It's not hard to imagine a 1% advantage in aspects of modern living. For example, things like not crashing your car, not spending a quarter of your income on credit card interest, not eating and drinking and smoking yourself to death, not building your house on a flood plain, not going on a crystal meth-fueled unprotected gay sex holiday, not telling your son to come back on his shield or carrying it, and so forth. All those examples are strongly determined by intelligence and personality, and therefore by brain genes, so I would expect those genes to currently be under strong selective advantage.

At the same time, a 1% reproductive advantage isn't obvious just by looking. It's a mere one extra baby per hundred people. If you wanted to measure that sort of difference with statistical significance, you'd have to get two groups of several thousand people who were otherwise genetically identical. To untangle it from the effects of environment and culture, you'd probably want tens of thousands of people in your experiment. In a genetically mixed population? Impossible to measure. So gigantic evolutionary differences are nearly invisible if you just look at the people around you.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

50% cannot reproduce *on their own*, toss in $5,000 , a clean room, stirrups and a petri dish and volia, 99% could reproduce. And here in lies my point, unnatural selection in what I feel is the truest sense. They "can" reproduce despite their innate inabilities to do so.

Really, everyone... many thanks for all of the intelligent responses and counter-counter responses! They have all required me to rethink my original ephemeral ideas on the subject and forced me to justify my own point of view (or readjust it, as the case may be). What I have gotten it down to is this:

You have a genetic heart condition that is repairable by modern medical surgery. Bada bing, this is no longer a "liability" in your current "environment". You have the good fortune to breed with a significant other who themselves have an affliction that thanks to modern medicine is no longer a "liability". Fast forward a dozen generations or more. Your non-liability affliction as permeated your subsequent generations, just as your significant others has, not to mention the afflictions from all their mates and all their ancestors. Now, some dozen generations later, your offspring have the propensity to have congenital heart defects (no worries, Dr. will fix that), blood that won't clot (woops, that'll complicate the surgery) and any number of other afflictions that aren't bad enough to kill you in one's or two's, but when you have 15 or 16 of them you're kinda fucked.

Ok, so the ones that are "fucked" die off and everybody "wins" because nature has taken the "weak" and only the "strong" with the ability to "survive" in the current "environment" do. Thats all fine and good, but when the "environment" is a house of cards (see New Orleans, could you survive with less then 1 weeks interruption to your "environment"?) I call bullshit.

And here is where we begin to split hairs... "If you can't go a week without insulin (or whatever) and you die, I consider you genetically weak." is quickly countered with "Well, you can't got more then a few minutes without oxygen, so I likewise consider you genetically weak." Which is fair enough, what makes your lines any more or less valid then mine? In the end nothing, but I'd submit that Merck, Pfizer, etc aren't required to make "oxygen" for me, where as they are to make insulin.

Then we get into splitting environmental hairs. Is the US "environment" more valid then the rural Chinese "environment"? Americans* have easy and unabated access to insulin (or whatever) so it's not a liability (yet those in rural China may or may not). (* - by "Americans" I mean Americans with health cover, so those 20mil+ poor bastards without it in the states simply don't count - think of them as a "mulligan"!). So where do we end up? Maybe - "If you wouldn't have made it on 'Lost' then your not genetically strong enough in my book."

I suppose in the end, you (not "you", but those on the opposite side of the fence then I) have much more faith in our system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.

Don't mind me, just feeding the Trolls...

[thecampbeln]

Hey there!

I defined "fitness" for the benefit of this discussion because my view of it was questioned. So with that I thought the discussion could benefit from me placing more of a firm view of what I intended the word "fitness" to mean in that context. This is in no way defining my own language, as you so claim. It is simply an effort to forward the debate. Think of how President Clinton "parsed" the English language during the Lewinsky trial. You expose your own intellectual deficiencies when you claim that I'm attempting to "make up my own language". (Ok, that was a bit low, but my own intellectual deficiencies made it so that I simply couldn't resist that cheap shot!)

That is emphatically and obviously false, unless you have some reason to believe that reproductive assistance technology will become less available in the future.

Yes, I do believe that in the future, given a large enough jolt such technologies will be out of reach for a generation or two (nuclear winter, a flu pandemic, or simply if you currently live in rural China) your current "enviroment" could very well be out of reach for a while. As I mentioned in another post, it seems that "you" (the collective you, not "you" you) have more faith in the system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.

No, you are NOT supporting that idea. You are claiming that evolution is now moving in a direction (technology required for reproduction) which you don't like. You think that's a negative change? Fine- but it's still a CHANGE, which is all that "evolution" means.

(Agh shit, here I go again "making up my own language...") For me, for the purposes of this discussion, humans playing god is not equal to evolution. Are we "evolving"? Yes, but seemingly only in the directions that *we* deem. I cease to see it as "evolution" when the creature itself is manifesting its own destiny. But yes, I concede that we are still "changing", I just don't see our own artificial version of change to be equal to that of evolution. The results are the same, no doubt, but I see the means as more important then the ends.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

I came to the realization last night as I was trying to go to sleep that we are disagreeing on a periphery topic. As I mentioned in another post, it seems that "you" (the collective you, not "you" you) have more faith in the system then I do. You have faith that Merck and Pfizer will always be there, I don't. I believe that in the future, given a large enough jolt such technologies will be out of reach for a generation or two (nuclear winter, a flu pandemic, the fall of "Rome", or simply if you currently live in rural China) your current "environment" could very well be out of reach for a while. And I guess in the end, that is the difference in our argument.

Really, thanks for the intelligent banter! I love a good clean debate with someone on the opposite side of the fence! You have logical reasons why you believe what you believe, just as I do. With discussions such as these we can each learn from one another and possibly in the end we are not as far apart as we once thought (or once were). The world needs more of these discussions, not less! Thanks again!

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

I am aware of the "bullet points" of the relationship between the (seemingly detrimental) sickle-cell anemia and malaria. And I am well aware that a disadvantage today my very well be an advantage tomorrow (or have been an advantage yesterday). In my mind it's like the relationship between intelligence and insanity. "You're either incredibly insane or insanely intelligent". Depends on your point of view and or your current situation.

If WE choose to fuck with evolution by selecting for things that WE consider more perfect (smarter, stronger, less disease in our understanding) then WE start to walk through doors and close off areas that may be necessary someday.

Funny, in the end we are yelling the same point I think. I feel that WE are fucking with evolution by US deciding who can (or cannot) procreate. So I fully agree with you there. Yet I disagree that we should do all we can to forward every genetic line we can simply because we have the technology to do so. But if we start to impose an artificial "natural" environment to further progress toward a more perfect being then we are only setting ourselves down an artificial evolutionary path. I couldn't agree more, yet I believe that with the extensive use of our technology, we're simply imposing an artificial "artificial" environment on ourselves.

I was referring to real IQ

[Ogemaniac]

not IQ post-normalization, which would make no sense in this context.

In any case, the effect that you are referring to (called the Flynn effect) where IQ generally rises over time, has recently been shown to have come to a virtual halt in the first world. It was primarily an effect of the worst scores getting better, probably due to an increase in basic education and childhood nutrition.

Wealth and intelligence

[Ogemaniac]

are highly correlated, and from what I have read, both are strongly correlated with fewer children and delayed childbearing.
Saying "smart people are not having enough children" and "rich people are not having enough children" are almost identical statements, and equally true.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[Anonymous Coward]

"Only superficially. Ultimately, science is about questioning and religion is about dogma (or "faith" if you prefer) and in the final analysis that means they are totally opposed to each other."

Dogma is not a way of saying faith with negative implications. But anyway.

It's true that religion requires faith, but it doesn't require you to stop asking questions (including questions about your religion). You're supposed to have faith because your beliefs stood up to your questioning (I suppose this depends on the religion in question- I guess in some you *are* just supposed to believe blindly, but Christianity in general is not like that).

Science and religion can't be "opposed." Science can explore or test religion, and may or may not be able to refute religious claims, but that doesn't mean that science is opposed to religion any more than science is opposed to failed theories...

I believe the average Japanese is 1-2cm shorter

[Ogemaniac]

than the average American. I took a fitness test in Kyoto once and they had the average height at just under 5'10" (177cm), which is a bit shorter than the average American male. The test was clearly normed for Japanese (I got annihilated on the flexibility test, and there is no way the average caucasian man can reach 4 inches past his toes!).

The racial differences in IQ are a whole other matter. Very policitally charged, unfortunately, which makes them difficult to talk about. Unfortunately, the evidence that at least some of the difference may actually be genetic is fairly strong. I dislike the fact that we cannot talk about this openly, but that is simply a reality in today's political climate.

Re:I believe the average Japanese is 1-2cm shorter

[king-manic]

The racial differences in IQ are a whole other matter. Very policitally charged, unfortunately, which makes them difficult to talk about. Unfortunately, the evidence that at least some of the difference may actually be genetic is fairly strong. I dislike the fact that we cannot talk about this openly, but that is simply a reality in today's political climate.

It makes sense from a genetic standpoint, both ashkenazi jews and east asians have a history of valuing intelligence and education and have had some selection for it (chinese beuracratic tests and the restiction of jewish careers.). The stats do support it but other factors could be the cause aside from genetic but even the diaspora have unussually higher averages, so it is at least cultural.

what civilisation selects for

[CarpetShark]

One of the two genes, ASPM, appears to have come under selection only 5800 years ago; but it is now at around 20 percent, with a frequency of near 50 percent in some Near Eastern populations. Whatever this allele does, it had a selective advantage of more than 5 percent. They don't know it necessarily makes people smarter, but it's hard to think what else it might be.

Perhaps it's the ability to step back, see what's going wrong, and quit using addictive substances/behaviour before it kills them. Drugs have been in mainstream use in many historic and modern civilisations, including our own. Which would be interesting, because I think a lot of western society's problems are based on addictive behaviour: wanting stuff that isn't needed and winding up in jail for trying to get it in the wrong ways, not knowing when to stop drinking, having sexual appetites that land one in trouble, etc. It would really fit in with the selecting forces of our society, I think.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[nagora]

but that doesn't mean that science is opposed to religion any more than science is opposed to failed theories...

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that science is opposed to failed theories. If you accept that science is an attempt to tell the truth then it must at some level be opposed to, for example, teaching Lamarckian evolution, just as it must at some level be opposed to teaching that Genesis as literal truth. If, like me, you think science is actually an attempt to reveal untruths, then this goes double.

TWW

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Planesdragon]

All true agnostics are atheists and so was Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell coined the term "agnostic" because he was sick to death of Atheists who treated Atheism as a religion of no God. And so, the language evolved, and the lower-a atheists ceeded the anti-theism word to the capital-A Atheists.

You of course are free to use whatever terms you wish. But the common usage does force a meaning upon "Atheism" of "the belief that there is no God and no group of lesser gods."

Great...

[batquux]

Just when I get this one tweaked the way I want it, a new model comes out and it's time to upgrade!

Re:I (don't) agree

[Fordiman]

He implied no such thing. He implied that smart people need to breed more.

And, while I know plenty of rich idiots and lots and lots of poor geniuses, I have to assume that you need to be smart in one way or another to get rich under your own power.

Completely off-topic.

Point is: do you have any children? I don't, and I know that I'm intelligent (pretty arrogant about it, too). Am I going to fuck to save the human race?

No.

I mean, why? I don't have kids, nor do I intend to. Why should I care what kind of world my non-existant children grow up in?

Meanwhile, the world's being taken over by lawyers and morons; gossip-queens and businessmen with rigid objects inserted roughly and firmly up their rectal crevasses. I don't want to raise kinds in that environment anyway.

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[koekepeer]

thank you for the philosophy lesson ;^) you are correct in nuancing my post. the point remains the same, i should've used another example, though.

yet the popular understanding of atheism involves the negation of the existence of a deity. other replies to my post indicate that more people interprete atheism in that way, and it is my personal experience that just about any self-proclaimed atheist thinks this way. within that context, the example was valid to illustrate the frame of mind of people who assume science is about facts.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[composer777]

Ok, I understand your fear, and we're not that far apart in that respect. I think things could get much worse in the near future (near meaning the next century or two). And no, I don't have much faith in corporations or the system. It needs to be replaced. In fact, it's not that I have faith in the system, it's that I think the system is horribly hard on most people, especially the 40 million poor people in the US (living at or below povery level). I think if anything, they have huge selective pressures to battle against. So, for every person that's able to afford proper medical treatment, there is another American, 37% of the population if I remember correctly, who can't even afford health insurance. That, and we're really talking about recent history, the past 100 years, which is very small evolutionarily speaking. Also, I think the people that are getting the kind of medical care you speak of, that allows them to "cheat" evolution, are a small fraction of the population. And, we're enormously successful as a species, so, even if there is some disaster, chances are that there are quite a few people who have what it takes to survive it.

The real reason that I like to argue against those that "worry" about evolution, is that evolution is a mechanism to explain speciation and biological diversity, and I really think that we should concern ourselves with how to care for human beings (not that these things are mutually exclusive, but it often seems to me that those who worry about evolution have a callous attitude towards those who are less fortunate). I think that we are going to go in one of two directions. We will either descend into chaos, in which case, people who worry about evolution won't have to worry anymore. Or, we will keep progressing and eventually learn how to manipulate our genetic code, in which case, again, we won't have to worry about evolution. I think that as long as we don't blow ourselves up, we'll be able to manipulate our genome in a short period of timee.

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[thecampbeln]

Well put! In the end, it's that "self" manipulation that is a bit scary to me (and I feel is happening now on a far lower scale with invitro, etc.). I think nature is better at the manipulation then we could be (or, maybe will be after a very long time [and a few fuckups along the way]). I worry about the blowing up thing, but also the "oops, we needed that allele" thing too =)

See Gattaca, The Island, and look at genetically engineered (and patented, and "self destructing") seeds, cows (not self destructing), etc. Monsanto won't give a shit about the hazard of a "mono-culture" until it hits their bottom line.

Best of all, I'm actually an optimist (no, really =)!

Re:I believe you missed the point of the grandpare

[DerWulf]

you are right, except that you miss on last bit: technology and humankind are almost one and the same. Just as some can't live without insulin, you and I can't live without heat and a supermarket. Subsidence farming will have you removed from the gene pool in no time. There is just no way that a human being can be successful without any technology. Now you could argue that fire and speers arn't as advanced as heart surgery and you'd be right. Yet it remains the case that technology is what 'we' (mankind) do to survive. Lions and their teeth and claws, turtels and their shell, whales and their plancton grills, men and their fire. It's our adaption, and should we loose it, we would be screwed just as animals are screwed when their adaption becomes useless.

Re: Misconceptions about atheism and agnosticism

[Maxo-Texas]

This was a very hard question. Here is my answer:

1) Is ignorant of the concept at all. They do not believe or disbelieve or wait for evidence to decide. (not agnostic, religious or atheist)

2) Is aware of them but does not believe. If they were to see evidence they would change their mind. Their disbelief is not a religion- just a fact. "The sky is blue- ghosts don't exist". ( Supposed definition for Atheist ).

3) Is aware of them but believes they definately do not exist. They think illogically to support their disbelief. "That wasn't a ghost- it was just a bad piece of chicken" or "I don't care about the evidence for mendelian genetics, I believe differently and ignore your evidence or even actively suppress it." (Actual Atheist I often observe in practice)

4) Is aware and them and believes they definately do exist. They think illogically to support their belief. "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." or "nya nya nya, I'm not listening, I'm not listening." or even wierder "I'm a scientist- I believe in evolution and natural selection but I also believe the literal truth of the bible at the same time- I just ignore any conflicts and think religiously in church and scientifically at the lab." (Religous)

5) Is aware of them and can't decide if they exist or not. They would decide based on evidence. Some would need weak evidence- others would need strong evidence. Most would need -physical- evidence or personal revelation to begin believing. (Agnostic)

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[Slur]

The reason Einstein and others have stated the value of religion is that - as far as institutions go - it is the only one that provides morality, and thus prevents us from indiscriminately using our knowledge without thinking of the consequences. Einstein and others were emphatically NOT saying anything about a designer, or "evidence to back up faith" (as if such made sense!).

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[Slur]

Not all religions are dogmatic. In fact Buddhism expressly prescribes the dictum to question everything - right down to your very identity. Other religions - Christianity being a prime example - are meant to be based on similar principles as expounded by their founders, but as institutions they have become corrupted and authoritarian... like most institutions.

The thing is, when it comes to personal enlightenment you do have to transcend the reason and knowledge that locks you into your sense of identity and beliefs about reality. The methods to accomplish this are scientifically applied by trained masters, who understand the tiers of awareness firsthand. Nevertheless enlightenment is not wholly incompatible with science. It merely liberates you from the illusions imposed by discursive thinking. It certainly doesn't preclude using your mind to investigate the material world, and in fact it enhances such activities by providing more enjoyment and delight in the process.

It happens that when people encounter numinous mental states without having had the benefit of a benevolent guide they will attempt to form explanations of the phenomenon using the religious symbols of which they are aware. And if they are involved with an authoritarian church their valid experience of transcendence can be corrupted very quickly and turned into zealotry. That's the trouble. Such experiences are frankly quite accessible, through chanting, dancing, drugs, prayer, etc., but the habit of grasping for explanations makes us susceptible to religious ideology.

So to put it bluntly, religion is not at its core either about dogma or faith. Those devices and attitudes may be helpful one guides and trains himself towards self-realization, but the purpose and aim of true religion is to throw off all such crutches once you learn to exist on your own.

.

Re:42% of USians surveyed don't believe in evoluti

[kid_oliva]

Hate to break it to you but Einstein was Jewish and a supporter of the Zion movement, which was instrumental in Israel becoming a state again after WWII. You haven't read much of Einstein's work outside of the science realm I would wager.