Good man! This is very true, as in some circumstances being less well has proven to provide protection. For example, possessing a single sickle cell anaemia gene provides protection from malaria, which is why sickle cell is more common in areas with malaria.
Evolution, yes but how?
- Thread starter Colbaker
- Start date
Good man! This is very true, as in some circumstances being less well has proven to provide protection. For example, possessing a single sickle cell anaemia gene provides protection from malaria, which is why sickle cell is more common in areas with malaria.
I have read that apparently it was mostly nutrition and environmental factors that determined the height drop in the 17-18th centuries. People in the middle ages appeared to be mostly our height. Maybe someone specialised in this field can give more information however.
Indeed, there's no specific motive with evolution, it's just the passing of genes regardless of the health of the individual.
Indeed, there's no specific motive with evolution, it's just the passing of genes regardless of the health of the individual.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 4,174
Better diet and better medicine. Childhood illnesses can't stunt your growth, as can malnutrition.
I'd say people seem to be confusing survival with luxury. Most people could learn to survive out in the sticks for a decent while. Our ancestors used to do it so we will have the instinct programmed into us somewhere. I think humans are now just working towards living a more luxurious life. We don't need cars, houses etc to survive, we want them for luxury. Hell, I'm not knocking it, I love luxury. 
It has been proven that being a murderer ISNT genetic, HOWEVER there has been studies done which have found some males with XXY gene (which is supposed to be XY if you didnt know). This makes you a more aggressive individual but doesn't mean you are definitely going to be a murderer, just more likely, just like if you have heart disease in you family you're more likely but dont have to get it.
And linking into what you said, Adolf Hitler was beaten by his father, I agree that much of being a "murderer" is to do with nurture rather than nature.
It makes sense really, I probably should have thought about my original post before posting but think this thread has gone further than i expected.
Another thing regards to evolution, If it is purely down to reproduction then logically the "fittest" (for want of a better word) people will be the one's who have the largest family's, These do tend to be the Dosser's who have nothing better to do than pro-create and unfortunately don't seem to have the intelligence to use contraception, Also certain races and religions have large family's so these will likely be the "fittest".
Also now we have to take into consideration Women, Before the strongest Man, the best hunter will get the choice of Women, If they are opposed then they fight and the winner then gets the choice of that women so that child is likely to have better genes, These days women make the decisions and a lot of women tend to choose weaker more feminine men, does this mean the human race is devolving itself into a week society reliant on other people?
Another thing regards to evolution, If it is purely down to reproduction then logically the "fittest" (for want of a better word) people will be the one's who have the largest family's, These do tend to be the Dosser's who have nothing better to do than pro-create and unfortunately don't seem to have the intelligence to use contraception, Also certain races and religions have large family's so these will likely be the "fittest".
Also now we have to take into consideration Women, Before the strongest Man, the best hunter will get the choice of Women, If they are opposed then they fight and the winner then gets the choice of that women so that child is likely to have better genes, These days women make the decisions and a lot of women tend to choose weaker more feminine men, does this mean the human race is devolving itself into a week society reliant on other people?
When you get to level 17 and your trainer doesn't press B evolution occurs. Happens again at level 34 and a final time if you have a fire stone and get traded with another trainer. Don't worry you can be traded back right away so nothing is out of place
Survival of the fittest, as aforementioned, is a bit misleading. Evolution is not only selection for the ability to survive, but also the ability to reproduce. A peacock does not have an enormous tail because it makes it better at avoiding predators 
It's better to think of it like this. A population is subject to selective pressures, both for viability and reproductive success. If there is random variation within that population, some individuals will be more 'successful' in that population than others (we tend to define success of an individual in this instance as the ability of that individual's offspring to be reproductively successful). As genes are passed on into offspring, we will eventually find the genes that code for that successful trait to increase in abundance. This means the species will either adapt to its surroundings, or to be more attractive to potential mates.
The more interesting question is how speciation occurs, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. In short, a population needs to be split into two - there must be a large extent of reproductive isolation. This might be brought about by certain selective pressures, or most obviously a physical barrier, such as a river. If a population on one side of a river has different selective pressures to the population on the other side, they will potentially adapt in different ways, sexually and for viability. The potential result will be two populations that no longer can or no longer wish to mate with each other.
This can be analysed to great extensive depths - I could write 10,000 words on what a species actually is, because it's almost impossible to define! However, I hope the above is of some interest to you OP.
Also, here's something I knocked up earlier:
Also, there is no such thing as devolution in biology. Evolution is one directional, even if a species is heading towards extinction due to its genetics, it's still evolution.
It's better to think of it like this. A population is subject to selective pressures, both for viability and reproductive success. If there is random variation within that population, some individuals will be more 'successful' in that population than others (we tend to define success of an individual in this instance as the ability of that individual's offspring to be reproductively successful). As genes are passed on into offspring, we will eventually find the genes that code for that successful trait to increase in abundance. This means the species will either adapt to its surroundings, or to be more attractive to potential mates.
The more interesting question is how speciation occurs, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. In short, a population needs to be split into two - there must be a large extent of reproductive isolation. This might be brought about by certain selective pressures, or most obviously a physical barrier, such as a river. If a population on one side of a river has different selective pressures to the population on the other side, they will potentially adapt in different ways, sexually and for viability. The potential result will be two populations that no longer can or no longer wish to mate with each other.
This can be analysed to great extensive depths - I could write 10,000 words on what a species actually is, because it's almost impossible to define! However, I hope the above is of some interest to you OP.
Also, here's something I knocked up earlier:
Evolution in Action:
This section is simply to expand on knowledge that one may know on this subject to gain a greater, more educated understanding. This could go on for a very long time, but I shall keep it relatively brief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 4 Postulates of Evolution by Natural Selection:
Natural selection produces descent with modification, i.e. evolution and the following postulations describe this method. All postulates are testable.
1) Individuals within species are variable (because of mutation creating new alleles and subsequent shuffling of alleles).
2) Some of the variations are passed on to offspring (genes are passed on to offspring intact and often independently of other genes).
3) In most generations, more offspring are produced than can survive.
4) Survival and reproduction are not random: individuals with the highest reproductive success are those with the most favourable variations (with alleles and allelic combinations that best adapt them to their environment)- they are ‘naturally selected’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Darwin’s Finches – Testing the postulates of natural selection:
Darwin’s finches are a collection of birds from the Galapagos Islands, a series of islands which have been largely undisturbed by human activity and show mass biological diversity. They evolved by allopatric speciation (more later) and adaptive radiation, probably evolved from common ancestor 1-5 Mya. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the Grant team observed and tagged individuals on the islet of Daphne Major, allowing each of these postulates to be tested and proved.
Postulate 1 - Individuals within species are variable:
The normal distribution of bill depth for Geospiza fortis:
The chart shows that there is clearly variation between individual bill depth. A drought in 1977-1978 caused a huge population crash, shown by the second chart. The drought caused a reduction in small seeds, leaving only seeds which birds with large bill depth could consume.
Postulate 2 - Some of the variations are passed on to offspring:
Regression analysis shows how much the change of a variable is due to one factor. The regression slope of the following chart measures 0.79 (R2 statistic), means that 79% of the variation in bill depth due to the additive effects of genes.
Postulate 3 - Are more organisms born than survive to reproduce?
The huge population crash in 1977 coincided with severe drought (Giving 85% mortality). Most finches died of starvation when seeds became scarce, however some population did surive
Postulate 4 - is survival and reproduction nonrandom??
Yes. There was a survival bias towards birds with deeper bills which could break open the hard seeds of Tribulus cistodes which were still relatively abundant. Only birds with deep bills can crack these seeds, so large bills selected for. This is shown in the chart below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Types of Selection:
Directional selection: Fitness increases (or decreases) with trait magnitude.
Stabilising selection: Individuals with intermediate trait values have highest fitness.
Disruptive selection: Individuals with extreme trait values have greatest fitness. This may be important in some modes of speciation.
The three types of selection demonstrated below:
There are many successful reproductive strategies in the animal kingdom. Rape, killing and infanticide are three of them, although human society prevents it. Humans have a very unique set of selective pressures - the best way to ensure the success of children (at least in western society) is monogamy, and this prevails. However all it takes for an individual to be successful is to have children that have children... there are many ways to achieve this, brute strength, academic prowess and money are not requirements!
Also, there is no such thing as devolution in biology. Evolution is one directional, even if a species is heading towards extinction due to its genetics, it's still evolution.
Actually it's survival of the most adaptable.
Darwin never coined the phrase - Herbert Spencer did, who then tried to apply it to his own economic theories.
Yeah I don’t think it’s referring to an individual, a stupid person is hardly going to be able to survive on their own without having the collective skillset of humanity behind them.
It refers to teamwork/packs. In nature, animals hunt and survive in packs, they look after each other and work together. Animals that many people would knock off as “just animals”, yet they show intelligence for their species by being able to work together.
That’s the kind of “fittest” it’s referring to.
It refers to teamwork/packs. In nature, animals hunt and survive in packs, they look after each other and work together. Animals that many people would knock off as “just animals”, yet they show intelligence for their species by being able to work together.
That’s the kind of “fittest” it’s referring to.
No more from me, debates as such tend to lead to bad blood, fruitless arguments etc. And besides, this country has more of a secular spirit.
Yes but if looking at the Mirror or The Sun newspapers tells me anything is that any overweight ugly chav can have 10 children. So that doesn't count anymore
Last edited: