|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Evolution and Society
#2423782 - 03/12/04 11:53 AM (20 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
I believe that society has influenced the course of evolution. But the question is, has its influence been positive or negative? I am undecided on this, but leaning towards the latter.
Examples of social constructs influencing evolution:
Marriage (monogamy): It screws with the natural reproductive process
The printing press: It gave us a way to store information other than genetics. So instead of new people having to figure everything out on their own, they can now learn from the experiences of others
agriculture: changed the evolutionary survival influence from hunting and gatering to farming and cooperation
the concept of money and trading: displaced the burden of survival from the individual to the group
fashion: influences the sexual selection process
Those are just a few examples. My concern is that these influences have become negative for one reason: Evolution has fallen behind society. It cant move as fast as society. During the time that one evolutionary change takes place, 100 civilizations could come and go.
Society takes the burden off of the individual. Not only is this bad in a social sense, it is bad in an evolutionary or genetic sense as well, because the person who cant take care of himself is now allowed to live and breed whereas before he would have perished and his genes would be deselected.
Our society has come so far in the acknowledgements of certain truths, but our genetics lag far behind. Though our society forbids it, we still have obsolete biological urges like excessive reproduction and violence. Could it be that society happened too early in man's evolutionary process? Isn't it just an artificial way to mold people's behavior while neglecting the very essence of their being? Has society allowed bad genetics to stagnate?
So, is society bad for evolution? Is this important?
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2423834 - 03/12/04 12:07 PM (20 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Evolution is not necessary a move forward, or an improvment, it's just a series of genetic mutations.
Genetic evolution certainly moves a lot slower than societal change.
Genetically, we may be adapting to become physically weaker. I'm not sure if this is happening to a very strong degree, but it is possible that this is the case. This is because we have found another way to adapt: technology. Our average lifespan is now longer than ever.
-------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phluck]
#2423850 - 03/12/04 12:14 PM (20 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
sure, evolution is just a series of random genetic mutations.
but it is environmental conditions that determine which mutations are selected and which ones arent. Society seeks to dominate environmental conditions, and in doing so, it influences evolution.
But is that influence more positive or more negative?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2423923 - 03/12/04 12:31 PM (20 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Isn't its influence both? A balance of positive and negative? Isn't the pattern still the same, only the numbers different?
When you talk of evolution, by what do you mean? Our physical characteristics? The evolution of our mind? Both?
I've lost focus, give me a little while. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
|
everything is a mix of good and bad. but some things are more bad than they are good, or vice versa.
when I talk of evolution I mean our geneticially determined physical characteristics
An individual's mind may develop, but it does not evolve.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2424063 - 03/12/04 01:07 PM (20 years, 11 days ago) |
|
|
Okay, I see what you mean now.
In physical terms, not so much is required of us anymore. Keeping ourselves fit, even though we should, it isn't a necessity for immediate survival anymore....
Let us talk more of evolution. What of the evolution of society itself? Or say the evolution of ideas and understanding?
Perhaps the focus is really on the evolution of ideas and understanding? Like you said, a mind may develop, but the mind itself doesn't evolve... but our common knowledge base evolves, doesn't it?
Maybe we are evolving right out of the physical realm.
The thing about evolution, I think, is that it is a lot easier to study it when it has already happened.
Hehe, sorry if my thoughts are wide and far between, my mind is in Exploration Mode right now. Enertaining myself with thoughts. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
|
any environmental factor that influences survival or sexual reproduction could be considered an evolutionary influence.
The advent of society has changed the rules of the game, both survival and sexual reproduction. But will these changes benefit our genetics over time, or are they detrimental?
before the advent of society and the printing press, each individual human had to figure shit out on their own. Now we have these social institutions that store that information and tell people what to do and how to think. This is good in the terms of the individual lifespan, but is it detrimental to our genetic evolution? One could argue that society has slowed the process of genetic evolution by de-emphasizing individual survivability.
And what about fashion and the sexual selection process? Being an "attractive mate" is now a matter of how well one conforms to the current standards of fashion. How is this affecting the way our species breeds? Is fashion merely a eugenic device for breeding conformity?
|
KthxBye
bandito furioso
Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 1,197
Loc: bottom of the noob barrel
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2425490 - 03/12/04 09:29 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: agriculture: changed the evolutionary survival influence from hunting and gatering to farming and cooperation
Aside from our own evolution, we've messed with the plant's as well. Domesticated plants evolve towards one thing: usefulness to humans, and so long as we control the enviorment, their survival is assured.
Corn, tobacco, marijuana all these are now propagated because of properties we want. This is not a bad thing, however. We are simply the latest property needed for survival. With time we'll develop a truly symbiotic relationship with these plants (at a biological level I mean)
-------------------- I know what he wants: a drag of smooth tobbacco blended with the finest Turkish Turkweed. Here, have a toke on me you dumb beast.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2425559 - 03/12/04 09:53 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2425591 - 03/12/04 10:10 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
"is fashion merely a eugenic device for breeding conformity" are you saying that "conformity" is genetic?
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: ]
#2425602 - 03/12/04 10:19 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I'm theorizing that conformity might be an attribute which is selected by the social constructs that govern many people's ideas of what is sexually "attractive".
face compositing studies seem to support this. Composite faces are always rated higher in terms of beauty than raw unaltered photographs of faces. This seems to suggest that the attractiveness of faces is a function of averages where deviance from said averages cause "unattractiveness".
As far as fashion goes... well thats just obvious. If conformity to a style of dress influences the probability of sexual reproduction, then it may be that those who are more likely to conform are also more likely to breed.
these are all just ideas I'm tossing out. not too committed to them really, just bouncing em off a wall.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: ]
#2425619 - 03/12/04 10:28 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr_Mushrooms said: I think Phluck might have been referring to the fact that evolution doesn't necessarily seek to improve anything. If that is the case, and mankind is a product of evolution, then whatever effects, societal or otherwise, are a product of evolution as well. If we view it this way it cannot be construed as negative because there is no negative. It is all one process, neither up nor down.
This is similar to the dichotomy between natural and artificial, which is only another dissection along similar lines.
yeah, its a hard thing to separate. But its undeniable that "artificial" social constructs influence breeding and survival. I say they are artificial because they are ethereal ideas that are imposed on people and dont necessarily come naturally to everyone.
For instance, I was told that in parts of Europe, it is the law that you must take care of your children until they are 26, or they have completed a full education, whichever comes first. I would imagine this could have a population control effect on the people. Because having children is a bigger responsibility, people breed less.
As far as survivability goes, well socialist healthcare is a good example. People with bad genetics that cause chronic conditions are taken care of by society instead of left to die on their own. As a result, they live to spread their bad genetics to the next generation. Now, I'm not trying to come off like a right-wing nut or anything here, but isnt it possible that society's unwillingness to allow nature's mistakes to fail is polluting the gene pool?
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: KthxBye]
#2425639 - 03/12/04 10:36 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aside from our own evolution, we've messed with the plant's as well. Domesticated plants evolve towards one thing: usefulness to humans, and so long as we control the enviorment, their survival is assured.
Corn, tobacco, marijuana all these are now propagated because of properties we want. This is not a bad thing, however. We are simply the latest property needed for survival.
That, I believe is an entirely different topic altogether, although it is equally interesting.
Quote:
With time we'll develop a truly symbiotic relationship with these plants (at a biological level I mean)
If we make it that far
My working theory is that before society, evolution more or less moved in a straight line, with very little branching.
Society supports a kind of "outward branching" evolution that goes in all directions.
But did we evolve enough in a straight line before we started branching outwards? Or did we blow our wad too soon? I suspect the latter.
unhealthy individuals cannot form a healthy society. Mankind needed a little more work on the individual before it started building societies. I feel that our sense of self is not good enough, on the whole, to form beneficial collectives.
the makeshift society we have now is just a crutch, and its making us weaker.
or maybe not
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2425707 - 03/12/04 10:58 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
- Post History Deleted Upon User's Request -
|
filthysock
puresoul
Registered: 01/12/04
Posts: 2,080
Loc: Bergen, Norway
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2426401 - 03/13/04 05:30 AM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I think we are evolution and evolution is us, simply due to the fact that we have free will and a conscious that has far exceeded our natural instincts. We can comunicate ideas and work together to create machines that make life more comfortabke for us, create a society that is more safe for us. but what does this do? It makes us weaker as people, weaker in every way except with knowledge. I guess you could say we are in the threshold of where we could survive on our own without machine to a time where that would be unthinkable. What are we if we cant even survive in our own home, mother earth with our bare hands? I think the social evolution is going the wrong way... I think the technological evolution is going the right way for technology, because we are damn good at it, but its not doing any good for our well being, our physical and mental strength and it forces stress upon us. The day the world goes into spiritual evolution I think the world will be going in the right way.
Do you know that our feet have points where when stimulated it gives us a feeling of well-being and relieves our stress, shoes stand in the way for this stimulation.
When we evolve, socially, as we do, we must keep in mind our physical and mental status will adapt to it, meaning we will only get weaker and weaker, and what will we do the day technology fails?
-------------------- Magic mushrooms are not addictive, the shroomery is!
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2426437 - 03/13/04 05:48 AM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: As far as survivability goes, well socialist healthcare is a good example. People with bad genetics that cause chronic conditions are taken care of by society instead of left to die on their own. As a result, they live to spread their bad genetics to the next generation. Now, I'm not trying to come off like a right-wing nut or anything here, but isnt it possible that society's unwillingness to allow nature's mistakes to fail is polluting the gene pool?
Maybe having socialistic healthcare is a good thing for the genetic pool. Maybe having the diversity is a good thing for evolution? Having so much diversity within the gene pool would allow for us as humans to survive various things that could come to harm us, you know? Having that wide gene pool could definitely be useful. It would allow us to adapt more to various things like diseases or something.... Maybe we could look at some circumstances where a shallow gene pool was isolated? Well, we know what happens when you have royal families inbreeding their "strong genes".... they end up not being "quite right", do they? I remember something about how cheetahs are totally fucked. Apparently there gene pool isn't that diverse and they are hitting some sort of wall that is going to kill them off.... I think that some scientists are even wanting to try bringing in genes from other animals, or something? And then the selective breeding of like corn... they edit out the "weak" parts and then some disease comes along and then FUCK! No more corn! I believe they grow like the oldest strain of corn they can as well somewhere, keeping it around in case we lose our new strains that we've been fucking with for so long... Hehe, sorry for not being able to speak so specifically on this, I haven't studied much on this... but isn't diversity a good thing? Adaptability? Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
|
sure, diversity in the genetic pool is a good thing! I was really afraid I might come off as some kind of nazi in this thread. Please dont think that was my intent. I am well aware of the downfalls of inbreeding and redundant genetics (I see a lot of it here in Texas ) My main concern is that our society encourages the wrong people to breed. I was told that the Rothchilds were very interested in eugenics going as far back as World War I. I also think that the republicans employ eugenics in their quest for control over the American democracy. Republicans are all about "family values". There are people here that sit outside of abortion clinics and verbally assault those trying to get an abortion. Then there is the Republican "child tax credit" bs (which goes against classic republican principles). My theory is this: Families are more easily manipulated than individuals. A man with a family has a burden on his shoulders which the republicans can use to politcally manipulate him. "Won't someone think of the children?" Republicans want people to have kids. That way, more people will vote republican since they cater to families. These values are then instilled in the next generation which goes on to start the whole cycle over again. How do you control a republic? cater to the people that breed. Thats why democrats lose elections. Their constituency is a bunch of gays and isolated intellectuals that dont tend to have children. I think these vandals lyrics sum it up perfectly: Marry Me Lyrics Young girl says to her mom, "How did you know that father was the one?" Then mom just rolls her eyes She says, "You'll find that special guy" but to herself she cannot lie She says, "I'm praying for the day I die and they bury me" Then boy become a man He finds that special one who understands He knows 'twas meant to be her faults he cannot see & now he's down on bended knee I pledge my love eternally, will you marry me? Do you take this woman? I don't! Do you take this man? I don't! For the rest of your awful life she is your lawful wedded wife Do you take this woman? I don't! Do you take this man? I don't! Eternal agony in holy matrimony The two now joined as one and from this holy union comes a son and the cycle begins again, another fool is on his knee Where is my alimony? Hang yourself from the family tree, Say marry me Menopause, mid-life crisis, moments for the rest of your life 'Til death do you part, 'til the kids leave home she is your wife (June?) Just look at your parents strife Imagine that for the rest of your life Do you take this women? Indubitably I don't
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2427447 - 03/13/04 12:59 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
put the words 'Eugenics' and 'Rothschild' into a search engine and you get some interesting shit. Like this: Eugenics and the Rothschild-Rockefeller Apparatus Thinking Themselves to Hell Entirely aside from matters of race is the concern that, on average, less intelligent people are more fertile than more intelligent people in modern industrialized society. Compatibility with techno-industrial civilization is predicated to a large degree on intelligence. Considering the importance of intelligence in the processes of innovation, high intelligence is desirable by almost any standard. Income Inequality and IQ, by Charles Murray (1998), published by The AEI Press (the American Enterprise Institute), rigorously documents a robust and dramatic correlation between inherited cognitive capacity and individual economic achievement. from ABC News, 2000-Mar-22, by Valerie Parker: Breeding Better Citizens In 1934, Adolf Hitler's chilling quest for superior humans was becoming a reality. He had secured passage of a new law in Germany that authorized the sterilization of ``feebleminded'' men and women, and within months the Nazis had operated on thousands of people. Although Hitler's philosophy and practices would eventually be repudiated globally, it may be a surprise to many that at the same time, people were being sterilized for similar reasons in the United States. The Eugenics Movement It was all part of a movement called eugenics that took a scientific approach to creating a genetically superior race. The idea was that by sterilizing people considered ``mental defectives,'' societal problems, such as poverty and crime, would be reduced. Eugenics became a popular concept, and at its height, it infused many areas of American culture. There were magazines such as Eugenics Quarterly, and many state fairs featured contests searching for ``Fitter Families'' and ``Better Babies.'' The topic even became the central theme of some movies. With the support of many prominent Americans, the movement gained such momentum that 35 states had laws on forced sterilization. The idea was even endorsed by the Supreme Court in the 1927 Buck vs. Bell decision, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that ``three generations of imbeciles are enough.'' As eugenics swept across the country, an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 people were sterilized. Many of these people did not have any mental illness. One Man's Tragic Secret One man who has carried this dark secret with him was Fred Aslin. When Aslin was a boy in 1936, his father died, leaving his mother to bring up nine children. For unknown reasons, Michigan state representatives deemed her unable to care for her children, and they were taken to a state mental institution and left there. When Aslin was first admitted, doctors' reports labeled him ``a feebleminded moron,'' but during his years at the institution, he received glowing reports from his teachers. Nevertheless, the ``feebleminded'' label stuck, and when Aslin turned 18 he was told that he would be sterilized. ``I [didn't] want anybody cutting on me - and they knew I wasn't crazy - they knew I wasn't retarded,'' says Aslin. Although he protested, a court order supported the surgery, and he was sterilized. Checking courthouse records, 20/20 producers were not able to find Aslin's original documents, but they did come across hundreds of files on sterilizations that were authorized for a wide range of reasons. Families Confront Past Producers also researched records in Indiana and discovered that state even had a Committee on Mental Defectives, which was partially funded by the state Legislature. This committee culled information from data submitted by doctors, teachers and government officials. College-educated surveyors would also go to individual homes throughout the state and write reports on possible mentally defective families of Indiana. In the committee's 1918 report to the governor, it defined ``mental defective'' as including the insane, epileptics and the ``feebleminded.'' It claimed that mental defects were ``transmitted from parent to offspring.'' It also classified three grades of ``feeblemindedness'': idiot, imbecile and moron. While these reports were thought to be thorough, modern experts have said they were heavily tainted by the prejudices of the researchers who wrote them. Many of the people described in these reports were spared sterilization as the Committee of Mental Defectives ran out of funding. The organization's research, however, was kept intact. 20/20 found many descendants of some people mentioned in the Indiana reports, and many families were shocked to discover what was written about their relatives. The eugenics movement now seems very un-American, but it is indeed part of the nation's past. And even though its proponents believed they were ``fostering a public good,'' scientists and historians affiliated with the DNA Learning Center of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory feel differently. Concerned by the impact of eugenics on people like Fred Aslin, they believe ``the coercive tactics of eugenics - race separation, marriage restriction, immigration restriction, and sterilization - fly in the face of current ideals for a compassionate, pluralistic society.'' source: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/racism.html#eugenics
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2427455 - 03/13/04 01:03 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
I dont think that the Rothschilds gave up on eugenics. they're just using a different approach now. more subtle, less intrusive.
Instead of trying to improve people, now they are trying to breed conformity and controlability.
BTW Eugenics was originally concieved by Galton who, interestingly enough, was Charles Darwin's cousin.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2427539 - 03/13/04 01:31 PM (20 years, 10 days ago) |
|
|
yes but how do you breed conformity? it is one thing to get height x, hair y etc, avoid certain diseases, but it is quite another to breed thought patterns... it seems to me like the degree to which you conform to societys standards is based upon personal experience.
|
NariusFractal
Sat Chit Ananda
Registered: 12/19/02
Posts: 804
Loc: USA
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: ]
#2428612 - 03/13/04 07:17 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
nikolai_ said: yes but how do you breed conformity? it is one thing to get height x, hair y etc, avoid certain diseases, but it is quite another to breed thought patterns... it seems to me like the degree to which you conform to societys standards is based upon personal experience.
Good point. Nature vs Nurture debate...
-------------------- You are the microcosm of the macrocosm.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: ]
#2428631 - 03/13/04 07:24 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yes but how do you breed conformity?
Reward those who conform by making it easier for them to survive and reproduce.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2428754 - 03/13/04 08:01 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Marriage (monogamy): It screws with the natural reproductive process
Monogamy (if adhered to) also greatly limits the spread of fatal sexually-transmitted sexual diseases. One tends to live longer if one hasn't contracted such a disease. Living longer is generally considered to be an advantage.
The printing press: It gave us a way to store information other than genetics. So instead of new people having to figure everything out on their own, they can now learn from the experiences of others.
People learned from others before the printing press was invented -- even before writing was invented.
griculture: changed the evolutionary survival influence from hunting and gatering to farming and cooperation
Which then allowed many more individuals of the species to flourish in the same amount of space.
he concept of money and trading: displaced the burden of survival from the individual to the group
Incorrect. Humans from the beginning were social animals. They grouped together long before currency and trading existed.
fashion: influences the sexual selection process
Really? To a miniscule degree in affluent societies, perhaps.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2428812 - 03/13/04 08:13 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
griculture: changed the evolutionary survival influence from hunting and gatering to farming and cooperation
Which then allowed many more individuals of the species to flourish in the same amount of space.
Thus setting in motion what would eventually lead to the overpopulation problem we have today.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: silversoul7]
#2428823 - 03/13/04 08:16 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
What population problem?
The Earth's population of humans is higher than it has ever been. From an evolutionary standpoint, that is a success story.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2428842 - 03/13/04 08:22 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said: What population problem?
The Earth's population of humans is higher than it has ever been. From an evolutionary standpoint, that is a success story.
No, not really. Evolutionary success does not rely on numbers, but rather on our ability to survive sustainably in our environment, and adapt to any changes that might come about. In nature there is such a thing as overpopulation. We are heading closer and closer to the point where our environment cannot sustain us, and then we can expect to see a sharp drop in our population due to hunger, disease, etc.
However, I will concede that I was being a bit rash in blaming agriculture for our overpopulation problem. Industrialization probably deserves more blame for that.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: silversoul7]
#2428930 - 03/13/04 08:40 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
silversoul7 writes:
In nature there is such a thing as overpopulation. We are heading closer and closer to the point where our environment cannot sustain us, and then we can expect to see a sharp drop in our population due to hunger, disease, etc.
Sez you. That is pure (and almost certainly erroneous) conjecture.
However, assuming for the sake of argument your assertion is true, that doesn't alter the fact that there are more human genes in existence at this moment than at any time in the past. The saturation point has not yet been reached. It may be reached one day with none of the calamities you mention coming to pass.
pinky
--------------------
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2429121 - 03/13/04 09:02 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not really talking about the effect society has on the quality of each individual's life, I'm talking about the effect society has on human genetics. Would you say it is an overall positive influence o r an overall negative influence?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2429371 - 03/13/04 09:17 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Positive, of course.
This is self-evident -- humans on their own are not as good at survival as humans in a group. This is readily observable in the fact that the earth today holds over six billion of us. There is no possible way six billion humans could exist without co-operating with one another -- i.e. forming societies.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2429511 - 03/13/04 09:24 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
True or False?:
1. Certain resources are finite.
2. Resources which are not necessarily finite need a certain amount of time to grow back.
3. The faster our population grows, the faster resources are consumed.
4. If we consume resources faster than they can grow back, we are likely to encounter a shortage of that resource.
5. If we have a shortage of resources necessary for our survival, many will perish.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: silversoul7]
#2429583 - 03/13/04 09:47 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
This is getting further and further off topic, but I'll play if you will.
1. Certain resources are finite.
True
2. Resources which are not necessarily finite need a certain amount of time to grow back.
True
3. The faster our population grows, the faster resources are consumed.
Some resources? True. Others? Untrue. Consumption of whale oil is at pretty much an all time low, as just one example.
4. If we consume resources faster than they can grow back, we are likely to encounter a shortage of that resource.
True
5. If we have a shortage of resources necessary for our survival, many will perish.
A sudden shortage? Possibly true. Yet note that the sudden and unanticipated-by-virtually-everyone shortage of cod off the Grand Banks resulted in no mass deaths.
A shortage we can see coming in time to switch to something else? False.
Was that chain of questions supposed to support your contention that the calamities you mention are a certainty?
More to the point, do those questions have anything to do with humanity's tendency to form societies? I thought the question under discussion was whether or not human society qua society affects human evolution.
pinky
--------------------
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2429679 - 03/13/04 10:22 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A shortage we can see coming in time to switch to something else? False.
Good point, which is why we must become more aware of the environmental problems facing us and do something to slow them down if we are to prevent such mass deaths.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2430627 - 03/14/04 06:19 AM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
pinksharkmark said: A sudden shortage? Possibly true. Yet note that the sudden and unanticipated-by-virtually-everyone shortage of cod off the Grand Banks resulted in no mass deaths.
I believe the difference here is that oil basically built the entire structure that we have today and is soley responsible for the creation and the survival of the majority of this Earth's population at this moment.
No mass deaths were experienced when there was a shortage of cod off of the Grand Banks because cod was apparently not absolutely necessary for the survival of those people.
Oil goes far, far beyond fuel. Everything that is manufactured today directly or indirectly depends on oil. If it wasn't actually made in some part from oil, more than likely the machines responsible relied on it.
You have to understand that oil is the blood of the structure on this Earth at the moment. Remember agriculture, which was being discussed up there? Well, oil-based agriculture seriously increased the population of Earth by 5 billion.
Health care is dependant on it... all forms of transportation... anything manufactured these days, pretty much...
Humans can't survive for very long if they have very little to no blood. Of course, blood in us is in a closed system and we don't have to worry about it except for not getting massive wounds that will drain it....
Well, this massive structure that billions of people are alive soley because of that structure survives on oil and oil has to come from somewhere.
And the issue isn't even running out of oil, it is of running out of inexpensive oil.
Which apparently is right around the culture and there is no way to avoid it. All sorts of problems will result because of it.
Well, no problem for the human species really, except a major setback... but lots of people will be lost because there is no solution that can keep this entire structure running, it is dependant on oil. There is nothing that can do as much as oil.
But ja, our entire society and structure is going to hit a wall and the only way to get it is to change the structure......
I don't have time at the moment, Doctor J, but I will be back later and address the main topic... For the oil thing, check out this link. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2430680 - 03/14/04 07:27 AM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DoctorJ said: My main concern is that our society encourages the wrong people to breed.
I was told that the Rothchilds were very interested in eugenics going as far back as World War I. I also think that the republicans employ eugenics in their quest for control over the American democracy.
Republicans are all about "family values". There are people here that sit outside of abortion clinics and verbally assault those trying to get an abortion. Then there is the Republican "child tax credit" bs (which goes against classic republican principles).
My theory is this: Families are more easily manipulated than individuals. A man with a family has a burden on his shoulders which the republicans can use to politcally manipulate him.
Ja, I definitely see what you mean here.
It could definitely be happening. People seeking control of others for their own power are definitely going to be doing it subtly. It makes me think of the cattle drives... slowly moving a large group of cattle as they graze towards the stockyards, hundreds of miles away... being subtle and patient definitely got 'dem there cowboys a huge payoff, after all.
(Side note: The Texas connotation running through this thread is suggesting something... the redundant genetics there, the Republicans and their leader, the cowboys leading the longhorns from Texas to Kansas..... intriguing. ) Oh, by the way, Doctor J, maybe you should start herding cattle and SpecialEd can sell them for you.
People need to be careful and aware. We tend to let a lot of things fall into the background with routine.... we need to be aware at all times of everything that is around us. Let us not be like the rabbit who sees a carrot and walks right into a trap to get it. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
psyka
Praetorian
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
|
Inner logic obviously reveals that we are going down a path of laziness and reliance on an artificial lifestyle. This did not take any statistics or scientific expirementation to conclude. I merely watch TV for 5 minutes and receive all the information about the LIES and BULLSHIT that I need. Fuck that. It is inevitable to come crashing down. When that day comes will you be ok?
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: psyka]
#2430996 - 03/14/04 11:07 AM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
Hehe, I will be okay. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: psyka]
#2431269 - 03/14/04 12:38 PM (20 years, 9 days ago) |
|
|
How do you know who's lying?
--------------------
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2434857 - 03/15/04 12:18 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Positive, of course. This is self-evident -- humans on their own are not as good at survival as humans in a group. This is readily observable in the fact that the earth today holds over six billion of us. There is no possible way six billion humans could exist without co-operating with one another -- i.e. forming societies.
Possibly you misunderstood the question I was asking. Human existence is not human genetics. Society may benefit human existence but it may not benefit human genetics. lets say theres a gene that causes social behavior. At some point this gene was selected by the circumstances of our environment because it benefits our survival and reproductive capabilities. but was the selection of this gene at the detriment of other genes? Because social genes are selected, antisocial genes might be deselected. But antisocial genes may be inherently related to genes that are conducive to independant thought. Also, since society takes the pressure off the individual, other genes for skills arent as pressed to the grindstone and therefore become weak and dull over many generations. I'm not talking about the life of the individual, or even of the collective population at any one particular moment in time. I'm talking about the evolution of the human genetic strain over say 100,000 years. could it be, from this perspective, that society is a crutch which ultimately weakens our genetics? Is the software fucking up the hardware?
Edited by DoctorJ (03/15/04 12:22 PM)
|
Droz
Love of Life
Registered: 10/15/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2434957 - 03/15/04 12:42 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
DoctorJ - I don't have an answer for you on that one, but I do like to view it as a possibility. Even though our genetics have advanced towards societies routines doesn't neccessarily mean they are weaker then any other genetics of inhabitants of this planet. All living things work together in a bigger society that eventually leads down to few traits that base our survival. One in our human lives would have to be aggressiveness. If we weren't aggressive to pick up those females we would never mate. Maybe in turn lack of that, the females may become aggressive. Even though all of this already exists. I'm trying to point out that even though we are in a society I don't think it makes a difference in our gene traits. The only other traits I can think of would happen to be getting back to the roots of hardcore survival and living out in the wild with no clothes on only to spend 100,000 years growing fur to keep our backs warm instead of growing the cotton or the hemp to do so. Say teeth designed for chewing instead of the use of a knife and fork. If that's what you mean I kind of like the way we are heading. If you know what I mean. Otherwise we'd still be barbaric creatures. Meanwhile nature plays it's little game of genetic mutations. Some people get those cancer fighting cells while other end up fighting cancer. Wait till we have the technology to alter our own genes and make it aparent that everyone can eventually own themselves a pair of cancer fighting cells. Science and the future will give us many evolutionary things. What do you think about coming completely artificial with doctors and scientists designing us bodies and brains. I just recently watched Ghost In The Shell so i'm on this sci-fi craze. In few words... Society is our evolution. There are two ways to go around it, wait 100,000 years for that advanced liver or go out and create it on your own. Our evolution has giving us the chance to take control of it. Take control. Life, Droz
-------------------- Evolution of Time.
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Droz]
#2434980 - 03/15/04 12:48 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
yeah, I'm not saying that society is ultimately bad...
but it may have come too early for humans. Perkaps we could have used a little more time in the oven before we came out to dinner. specificly I'm talking about the brain here, not necessarily physical characteristics like hair and teeth.
also I think there are societies which could benefit evolution, but they would probably not be very fun to live in. It would be a sacrifice of human experience for the benefit of human genetics. That extreme doesnt strike me as any better than the extreme we're in now. I think the key is balance.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2435004 - 03/15/04 12:58 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
DoctorJ writes:
Possibly you misunderstood the question I was asking.
Human existence is not human genetics. Society may benefit human existence but it may not benefit human genetics.
Without the existence of humans, there are no human genes. Conversely, the more humans there are, the wider the variation of genetic material upon which the process of evolution may operate.
but was the selection of this [social] gene at the detriment of other genes?
Define "detrimental". If human genetic material is replicated, then from the point of view of genes, all is well. Clearly, the "social gene" is not detrimental.
Because social genes are selected, antisocial genes might be deselected. But antisocial genes may be inherently related to genes that are conducive to independant thought.
They may be. That does not necessarily make them detrimental from an evolutionary standpoint.
Also, since society takes the pressure off the individual, other genes for skills arent as pressed to the grindstone and therefore become weak and dull over many generations.
Which skills might those be? Clearly they are not skills required for the continued existence of human genes.
'm not talking about the life of the individual, or even of the collective population at any one particular moment in time. I'm talking about the evolution of the human genetic strain over say 100,000 years.
i guess we'll have to wait 100,000 years to answer that, no?
could it be, from this perspective, that society is a crutch which ultimately weakens our genetics?
More likely the reverse. Without the information which can only be transmitted from one human to the next through the agent of society, it is likely that predators, famine, flood, etc. would have ended the human line millennia ago.
pinky
--------------------
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2435044 - 03/15/04 01:09 PM (20 years, 8 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Which skills might those be? Clearly they are not skills required for the continued existence of human genes.
surely you mean to say: "Clearly they are not skills required for the continued existence of human genes within the situtational parameters of a society."
Society is not a constant. Society could collapse at any minute. Would our genes be able to survive as they were able to before the advent of society? "Overspecialize and you breed in weakness."
The other day I saw an ad on television about the Wal-mart health insurance. This walmart employee was saying how great walmart health insurance is because it paid for his son's surgeries.
Now, this kid had to have open heart surgery at 3 months of age, and a kidney transplant at 7 months of age. Now, this may seem cold-blooded, but I think that kid has shitty genetics. Mother nature fucked up and obviously doesnt intend for him to survive. But society intervenes and helps him anyway. And if it continues to do so, this kid will grow up and lead a somewhat "normal" life. But what if he has kids? And his kids have kids? It becomes a cancer on our genetic strain; a gene pool pollutant.
Quote:
More likely the reverse. Without the information which can only be transmitted from one human to the next through the agent of society, it is likely that predators, famine, flood, etc. would have ended the human line millennia ago.
or maybe the human race would have adapted to these adversities in a different way than storing their treasures here on earth. Maybe, the human race would have become stronger without the crutch of society.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2437080 - 03/15/04 09:30 PM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
DoctorJ writes:
surely you mean to say: "Clearly they are not skills required for the continued existence of human genes within the situtational parameters of a society."
Since humans have been social beings for pretty much as far back as we are able to determine, I didn't think the qualification was required.
Society is not a constant.
Any given society is not necessarily a constant, no.
Society could collapse at any minute.
Oh, please. Every society everywhere on the planet collapses simultaneously? By what possible set of hypothetical circumstances do you envision every human shunning every other human and living all alone, driving off any other human who approaches too near?
Would our genes be able to survive as they were able to before the advent of society?
You mean the genes that existed in the times before even Homo erectus walked the earth? Sorry, but such genes no longer exist.
Now, this may seem cold-blooded, but I think that kid has shitty genetics.
Yup.
Mother nature fucked up and obviously doesnt intend for him to survive.
Absent the intervention of other humans, yup.
But society intervenes and helps him anyway. And if it continues to do so, this kid will grow up and lead a somewhat "normal" life.
Indeed he will.
But what if he has kids?
Perhaps the genes of the mate he chooses are dominant, and the kids will turn out to be perfectly viable. But even if they don't, they too may be kept alive through technology.
It becomes a cancer on our genetic strain; a gene pool pollutant.
Sickle cell anemia remains incurable to this day. Yet millions carry a genetic predisposition for it. This is clear evidence that potentially fatal genetic flaws are carried from generation to generation without of the assistance of society.
or maybe the human race would have adapted to these adversities in a different way than storing their treasures here on earth.
Like Homo neandertalis (sp?), for example?
Maybe, the human race would have become stronger without the crutch of society.
You started this whole thread. It was about evolution and genetics and society. Define "stronger" in the context of evolution and genetics.
I say society has been beneficial to the production of human genetic material and support my assertion by pointing to the record amount of human genetic material on the planet today. You on the other hand speculate that if there were no such thing as human society, there would be even more human genetic material on hand.
pinky
--------------------
|
Droz
Love of Life
Registered: 10/15/00
Posts: 2,746
Loc: Floorida
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2437112 - 03/15/04 09:36 PM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Stronger - The use of medicines that can be easily obtained through say eating the leaves of a plant.
Weak - Having to spend 100 years of time working on medicine that they test on dead rats then throwing it out on the market to fuck up our brains. Throw that damn prozac away damn it.
-------------------- Evolution of Time.
|
Strumpling
Neuronaut
Registered: 10/11/02
Posts: 7,571
Loc: Hyperspace
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2437633 - 03/16/04 12:17 AM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Its like Frankenstein - we need to pay close attention to what we create, because everything we make will evolve into things we never expected, and cross itself with our other creations in ways we never expected.
Money, for example, started off nice but turned out to be one of the stupidest ideas ever, and its influence over this planet astounds me every morning
-------------------- Insert an "I think" mentally in front of eveything I say that seems sketchy, because I certainly don't KNOW much. Also; feel free to yell at me. In addition: SHPONGLE
|
DoctorJ
Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: Phred]
#2438663 - 03/16/04 09:44 AM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Since humans have been social beings for pretty much as far back as we are able to determine, I didn't think the qualification was required
there is a difference between social behavior and the formation of a society.
Quote:
Oh, please. Every society everywhere on the planet collapses simultaneously? By what possible set of hypothetical circumstances do you envision every human shunning every other human and living all alone, driving off any other human who approaches too near?
It might seem hard for you to believe, but we live in different worlds. Your generation's biggest fear was nuclear. My generation has to contend with biological weapons, nanotechnology, environmental/earth changes (including the possibility of pole shifts and meteor strikes), plus the overpop and resource shortage factors SS7 mentioned.
what, are you saying it couldn't happen?
Quote:
Like Homo neandertalis (sp?), for example?
neandertalis is a good point. they are a branch of humanity that went too far in one direction and not enough in the other. Environmental conditions did not support the course that their evolution was taking. could be us, too. Only time will tell.
Quote:
Define "stronger" in the context of evolution and genetics
perhaps the individual would be capable of more. perhaps our capacity for independant thought and self sufficiency might be greater. If society didnt come when it did, I mean- if it had come later.
If there are alien races out there, it would be interesting to study their evolution and how the sequence of accquisition of abilities might effect their development and genetic makeup. Like what if, for instance, on some other planet, the brains of dominant lifeforms evolved complex mathematical ability before social behavior.
Quote:
I say society has been beneficial to the production of human genetic material and support my assertion by pointing to the record amount of human genetic material on the planet today.
Quantity is not necessarily quality my friend. Ask any mexican schwag weed farmer
Quote:
You on the other hand speculate that if there were no such thing as human society, there would be even more human genetic material on hand.
yes, i am speculating and I freely admit that.
however, I said nothing about the quantity of genetic material. If you think quantity is all there is to genetics, you have some reading to do.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Evolution and Society [Re: DoctorJ]
#2439005 - 03/16/04 11:29 AM (20 years, 7 days ago) |
|
|
DoctorJ writes: there is a difference between social behavior and the formation of a society. Indeed there is. However, humans (at least the current model of humans -- Homo sapiens sapiens) have formed societies for as far back as we are able to determine. They have always lived in groups. Your generation's biggest fear was nuclear. It was a big one for many, yes. I have more fear of nuclear weapons today than I did during the Cold War, and so do most of the other thinking members of my generation. My generation has to contend with biological weapons, nanotechnology... As does mine. I'm still here, you know. ... environmental/earth changes (including the possibility of pole shifts and meteor strikes)... Environmental changes have been occuring since the day the Earth formed, as have pole shifts and meteor strikes. ...plus the overpop and resource shortage factors SS7 mentioned. And my generation didn't have these worries? You should read some of the books written by the doomsayers of three decades ago -- Erdman, Ehrlich and others. If nothing else, they're good for a laugh. what, are you saying it couldn't happen? Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Current societies may crumble, as past societies have many many times in our history, but society qua society will remain. From what I have been able to determine, your beef with human society re the gradual change of the human genotype over time (which is all that evolution is, after all) is that human society allows humans to pass knowledge from one generation to the next. All I am saying is that humans have always done that. We seem genetically hardwired to do that. In some hypothetical post-apocalyptic world, the remaining humans will continue to do that. neandertalis is a good point. they are a branch of humanity that went too far in one direction and not enough in the other. Environmental conditions did not support the course that their evolution was taking. Speculation. For all we know, Homo sapiens sapiens hunted down and killed them all. Perhaps we were able to accomplish this genocide because we were better at running societies than the Neanderthals were -- i.e. evolutionarily advantaged. perhaps the individual would be capable of more. More what? From an evolutionary standpoint, if the individual succeeds in replicating its genes, the game has been won. If it succeeds in not just replacing one-for-one, but actually increasing the number of vessels bearing its genes, the game has not just been won, but aced. perhaps our capacity for independant thought... All humans think independently. Humans don't think collectively. Each human must (and does) think for herself. ...and self sufficiency might be greater. It is the collected knowledge of millennia, passed on through human society, that increases the probability of individual human survival (self sufficiency) when that individual becomes separated from the group. No single human could possibly discover on his own in the course of his single lifespan such acquired skills as making fire, knapping flint, planting crops, constructing bows and arrows, curing hides, plaiting plant fiber, treating himself with plant extracts, taming horses, the principles of sanitation... need I continue? Quantity is not necessarily quality my friend. From an evolutionary standpoint (and that is what this thread is about) quantity is quality. See my comments re: replicating vessels carrying genetic material. If you think quantity is all there is to genetics, you have some reading to do. If you think continuing change is all there is to genetics, you have some reading to do. Is the cockroach not successful? How many cockroaches are there on the planet? How about ants? Yeast? Bacteria? Fungi? Ferns? Algae? pinky
--------------------
|
|