Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Nim · Guest

Ah gee,

Adaptation requires two things: mutation AND natural selection, which is
what I said. Mutation is a random change in the genetic structure of an
animal or organism. But while most mutations are harmful and don>t survive,
NOT ALL fit that category, as I said. A mutation can ALSO cause a useful
change. Natural selection is the next thing - useful mutations don>t go
anywhere or get inherited if selection is not made in FAVOR of those that
have it. If the mutations are useful, they survive and multiply due to that.

I got an idea! (Never say a stomach ache is bad when it can give me an
idea).... There IS something that breeds fast enough for you to SEE this
happening. Take the well-known E. coli bacteria. Lemme go find something -
it>s got to be on the web by now. (Magical thinking - you see, the stomach
ache I have, caused by the E Coli, is due to the E Coli saying, "HEY, tell
Mario about us!") Truth to tell, my stomach gave me the idea.

OK: the E. Coli shall have the stage.....
"In about 100 days, 1,000 generations of E. coli were watched. Lenski>s team
increased the supply of mutations in two ways: They increased the E. coli
numbers and they used strains of bacteria that have elevated *mutation*
rates.
"Meanwhile, the first generations were put on ice for storage. Later, they
were thawed and put into competition with their descendants to measure how
well the new family lineage had evolved.

"The result: *Increasing the number of mutations speeds up evolution.* Even
though there are more detrimental mutations, natural selection still ensured
the survival of the fittest beneficial mutations.

"The new generations of bacteria ultimately were made stronger by their
beneficial mutations and were able to out-compete their ancestors (the ones
without the mutations).

OK? Still mutations occur, most are deliterious, SOME are GOOD. I opt for
a lot of other things causing evolution to the point of speciation when a
group WITHIN the population splits off - and that would be retroviruses,
drastic environmental changes (so drastic that the whole species almost
dies) and such things - and definitely NATURAL SELECTION.

Natural selection leads to adaptation - "the accumulation of structural,
physiological or behavioral traits that increase an organism>s fitness" -
but you can view natural selection as selecting AGAINST - not necessarily
selecting for. FITNESS is only that which helps the organism survive and
reproduce in THAT ENVIRONMENT with the traits it has. Reproduction ensures
that there is survival, the genes are carried on. By the way, those that
do not reproduce, in terms of evolution, are UNFIT. As for "fit" - in
malaria endemic areas, heterozygous sickle cell is FIT.

This can cause evolution (the word means changes in gene frequencies in
time) but consider that populations evolve that were already IN a species,
not "species evolve." POPULATIONS evolve. Populations are interbreeding
people of the same species in the same location. (Species are a different
group that MIGHT BE ABLE to interbreed and produce VIABLE offspring, but
they don>t necessarily do that). More specifically than just mutation and
natural selection there is MUTATION (change in nucleotide sequences, new
alleles and NEW VARIATIONS); also genetic material gets shuffled differently
during meiosis; NATURAL SELECTION and then, isolation too. Both mutation
and shuffling gets you variations. For humans: 1. Mutation see above on
alleles. 2. Migration or habitat tracking - new alleles are brought in, old
alleles taken out (by people coming and staying, and people leaving for
good) . 3. Random events due to small population size. These can wipe out a
whole population - and their genes. Or a few can go and start a new
population with only the genes they have.

There is the idea of a real population in equilibrium, but I don>t see WHERE
that ever existed because each individual would have to have an equal chance
of mating with any other individual in the population! No such thing.

Finally, Sexual selection - that>s a HUGE thing: mates are selected on the
basis of physical or behavioral characteristics. These are phenotypical,
you can SEE them. You can>t see things in the genes that aren>t expressed -
they aren>t visible. But they are there and they MIGHT express if the
environment is different enough.

Darwin: all species reproduce in excess of the numbers that can survive yet
adult populations remain relatively constant; therefore there must be a
severe struggle for survival, (that struggle can take many forms,
competition or cooperative strategies are BOTH used, nowadays they see more
cooperation than competition when they view the ENTIRE eco niche). All
species vary in many characteristics and some of the variants confer an
advantage or disadvantage in the struggle for life.

The result is a natural selection favoring survival and reproduction of the
more advantageous variants and elimination of the less advantageous
variants - as I said. Sure, you are looking at humans at Chernobyl. Sigh.
Take a look at the E. Coli where you can SEE this in action because they
breed so fast.

What happens when a deliterious mutation is DOMINANT? Sickle cell, if
homozygous, is deadly - if heterozygous - it>s BENEFICIAL to anyone living
where there is malaria.

What a subject title to have on this thread - LOL.

"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:br6o24$5rr$1@ls219.htnet.hr...

[quote]John Wilkins :
Webbed interdigits are easy to produce - it is a simple matter of a
slight change in the signal for cell death during development.

As long as it is slight, it is OK with me. Mutation doesn>t care
if
it changes original condition slightly or for any other amount. -- Mario

[/quote]

Nim · Guest

Turning your mockout of whatever into something serious.

7% of humans are born with webbed fingers or feet (forgot which, but no
matter). No one selects in favor of people who have this or who have big
wide feet. What if people started to select for that trait, with webbing
being the prize? We>d have more of them. We>d have some pretty good
swimmers down the line :) I>m not sure if this is inherited or know much
about it. But let>s say it was. We>d have good swimmers - fast swimmers :)
Next, select in favor of those with the least body hair :) heh.

Webbing (syndactyly) refers to the union of two or more fingers or toes,
which usually only involves a skin connection between the two, but may
rarely also include fusion of bones in the affected digits.
Webbing may extend partially up between the digits, frequently just to the
first joint, or may extend the entire length of the digits.

In its most common form, it is seen as webbing between the 2nd and 3rd toes.
This form is often *inherited* and is not unusual. Syndactyly can also occur
as part of a pattern of other congenital (present from birth) defects
involving the skull, face, and bones. The child may grow having a face that
resembles Edward G. Robinson or J. Edgar Hoover.

"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fd52d53.1568749@news.saix.net...
[quote]On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 22:45:00 +0100, "Mario Petrinovich"
mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote:

Nim :
Listen, fellow, you are AGREEING with me.

Hi, fellow, : ).

Mutations happen. IF the organisms survive it (let>s say a virus causes
it
and they don>t survive), then that>s that. IF some survive it and find
it
advantageous (i.e., you>re kid and a bunch of other start being born
with
webbed fingers - and find it useful or even better (advantageous).
Start
breeding WITH them, FOR that trait.

Webbed feet aren>t mutation. It takes long time to DEVELOP such a
trait. It is in tune with environment, made for use in specific
environment,
developed in tune with specific conditions, for which they are usable.
Mutations aren>t usable. Because they are lacking all the things
that I>ve mentioned.

Have you seen "The webbed feet monologues"?

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

Steve Hayes
hayesmstw@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
[/quote]

Philip Deitiker · Guest

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:03:07 GMT, "Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> did
some sarious thank>n and scribbled:

[quote]Turning your mockout of whatever into something serious.

7% of humans are born with webbed fingers or feet (forgot which, but no
matter). No one selects in favor of people who have this or who have big
wide feet. What if people started to select for that trait, with webbing
being the prize? We>d have more of them. We>d have some pretty good
swimmers down the line :) I>m not sure if this is inherited or know much
about it. But let>s say it was. We>d have good swimmers - fast swimmers :)
Next, select in favor of those with the least body hair :) heh.
[/quote]
What is the purpose of these Ad Hoc posts?

Mario Petrinovich · Guest

John Wilkins :
[quote]Mario Petrinovich :
John Wilkins :
Webbed interdigits are easy to produce - it is a simple matter of a
slight change in the signal for cell death during development.

As long as it is slight, it is OK with me. Mutation doesn>t care
if
it changes original condition slightly or for any other amount. -- Mario

Given a single base pair change in a regulatory gene, and the phenotypic
effects can be as large as you like.
[/quote]
I don>t know if I got this right, but if this means that even a
slight (evolutionary) shift can make a great effect, this is also alright
with me. As long as we are not talking about some "creative" mutations (or
creationistic, if you like).
I don>t think that a single change could do something. We are all
different. There are no two identical blades of grass. We are all in
different condition. And we all mix. If we look at the present value of some
gene condition as, lets say, a value of atmospheric pressure in atmosphere,
we will see that we could have a lot of different valus above and bellow the
avarage value. And this all mixes very fast. Only 64 generations ago (lets
say, in the time of Jesus) I could be related to all population on 6 000 000
000 planets, every planet having 1 000 000 000 people. If nature prefere
some specific condition, of some specific gene, in some specific
environment (location), it can boost shift toward that condition. There is
no single Mother-Of-All unit (a spring from which everybody is comming
from). -- Mario

Mario Petrinovich · Guest

Nim :
[quote]Mutations don>t necessarily make evolution happen. I would think that
speciation does that. For information on speciation, see Niles Eldredge.
There is quite a bit known about phylogeny - but not WHY things diverged
so
far from each other that they are different classes now. Eg. worm and
octopus. For that matter, humans and worm. Same ancestor.
[/quote]
Because you don>t know enough, you cannot see logic in it. Maybe we
never will be able to see it. But, this is always the case (take a look at
our past), whenever we are talking about something on the fringe of
knowlage, we are escaping logic and are trying to find the answer in magic.
This is the best we can do. There are some people (religious leaders, or
scientiests) from whom we recquire to give as an answer. In the absence of
better things, they are talking to us that it has to be something magical in
it. If they try to talk logical, they will be fastly proven wrong, simply
because they don>t know enough. And, since they are paid to know more than
the rest, they could lose their jobs. That was the case in the past, as that
is the case now. -- Mario

Nim · Guest

Ah gee,

Adaptation requires two things: mutation AND natural selection, which is
what I said. Mutation is a random change in the genetic structure of an
animal or organism. But while most mutations are harmful and don>t survive,
NOT ALL fit that category, as I said. A mutation can ALSO cause a useful
change. Natural selection is the next thing - useful mutations don>t go
anywhere or get inherited if selection is not made in FAVOR of those that
have it. If the mutations are useful, they survive and multiply due to that.

I got an idea! (Never say a stomach ache is bad when it can give me an
idea).... There IS something that breeds fast enough for you to SEE this
happening. Take the well-known E. coli bacteria. Lemme go find something -
it>s got to be on the web by now. (Magical thinking - you see, the stomach
ache I have, caused by the E Coli, is due to the E Coli saying, "HEY, tell
Mario about us!") Truth to tell, my stomach gave me the idea.

OK: the E. Coli shall have the stage.....
"In about 100 days, 1,000 generations of E. coli were watched. Lenski>s team
increased the supply of mutations in two ways: They increased the E. coli
numbers and they used strains of bacteria that have elevated *mutation*
rates.
"Meanwhile, the first generations were put on ice for storage. Later, they
were thawed and put into competition with their descendants to measure how
well the new family lineage had evolved.

"The result: *Increasing the number of mutations speeds up evolution.* Even
though there are more detrimental mutations, natural selection still ensured
the survival of the fittest beneficial mutations.

"The new generations of bacteria ultimately were made stronger by their
beneficial mutations and were able to out-compete their ancestors (the ones
without the mutations).

OK? Still mutations occur, most are deliterious, SOME are GOOD. I opt for
a lot of other things causing evolution to the point of speciation when a
group WITHIN the population splits off - and that would be retroviruses,
drastic environmental changes (so drastic that the whole species almost
dies) and such things - and definitely NATURAL SELECTION.

Natural selection leads to adaptation - "the accumulation of structural,
physiological or behavioral traits that increase an organism>s fitness" -
but you can view natural selection as selecting AGAINST - not necessarily
selecting for. FITNESS is only that which helps the organism survive and
reproduce in THAT ENVIRONMENT with the traits it has. Reproduction ensures
that there is survival, the genes are carried on. By the way, those that
do not reproduce, in terms of evolution, are UNFIT. As for "fit" - in
malaria endemic areas, heterozygous sickle cell is FIT.

This can cause evolution (the word means changes in gene frequencies in
time) but consider that populations evolve that were already IN a species,
not "species evolve." POPULATIONS evolve. Populations are interbreeding
people of the same species in the same location. (Species are a different
group that MIGHT BE ABLE to interbreed and produce VIABLE offspring, but
they don>t necessarily do that). More specifically than just mutation and
natural selection there is MUTATION (change in nucleotide sequences, new
alleles and NEW VARIATIONS); also genetic material gets shuffled differently
during meiosis; NATURAL SELECTION and then, isolation too. Both mutation
and shuffling gets you variations. For humans: 1. Mutation see above on
alleles. 2. Migration or habitat tracking - new alleles are brought in, old
alleles taken out (by people coming and staying, and people leaving for
good) . 3. Random events due to small population size. These can wipe out a
whole population - and their genes. Or a few can go and start a new
population with only the genes they have.

There is the idea of a real population in equilibrium, but I don>t see WHERE
that ever existed because each individual would have to have an equal chance
of mating with any other individual in the population! No such thing.

Finally, Sexual selection - that>s a HUGE thing: mates are selected on the
basis of physical or behavioral characteristics. These are phenotypical,
you can SEE them. You can>t see things in the genes that aren>t expressed -
they aren>t visible. But they are there and they MIGHT express if the
environment is different enough.

Darwin: all species reproduce in excess of the numbers that can survive yet
adult populations remain relatively constant; therefore there must be a
severe struggle for survival, (that struggle can take many forms,
competition or cooperative strategies are BOTH used, nowadays they see more
cooperation than competition when they view the ENTIRE eco niche). All
species vary in many characteristics and some of the variants confer an
advantage or disadvantage in the struggle for life.

The result is a natural selection favoring survival and reproduction of the
more advantageous variants and elimination of the less advantageous
variants - as I said. Sure, you are looking at humans at Chernobyl. Sigh.
Take a look at the E. Coli where you can SEE this in action because they
breed so fast.

What happens when a deliterious mutation is DOMINANT? Sickle cell, if
homozygous, is deadly - if heterozygous - it>s BENEFICIAL to anyone living
where there is malaria.

What a subject title to have on this thread - LOL.

"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:bracaj$46q$1@ls219.htnet.hr...

Nim · Guest

You cut off the funny, see below.

"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:9d4htvo9ieueo4njo2gn97e183h1p4786q@4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:03:07 GMT, "Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> did
some sarious thank>n and scribbled:

Turning your mockout of whatever into something serious.

7% of humans are born with webbed fingers or feet (forgot which, but no
matter). No one selects in favor of people who have this or who have big
wide feet. What if people started to select for that trait, with webbing
being the prize? We>d have more of them. We>d have some pretty good
swimmers down the line :) I>m not sure if this is inherited or know much
about it. But let>s say it was. We>d have good swimmers - fast swimmers
:)
Next, select in favor of those with the least body hair :) heh.

What is the purpose of these Ad Hoc posts?
[/quote]
In its most common form, it is seen as webbing between the 2nd and 3rd toes.
This form is often *inherited* and is not unusual. Syndactyly can also occur
as part of a pattern of other congenital (present from birth) defects
involving the skull, face, and bones. The child may grow having a face that
resembles Edward G. Robinson or J. Edgar Hoover.

Purpose? What is the purpose of anything, actually.

Mario Petrinovich · Guest

Nim :
[quote]Adaptation requires two things: mutation AND natural selection, which is
what I said. Mutation is a random change in the genetic structure of an
animal or organism. But while most mutations are harmful and don>t
survive,
NOT ALL fit that category, as I said. A mutation can ALSO cause a useful
change.
[/quote]
I won>t comment on the rest of your post.
The very idea that everything rests on something random is, gives
everything very blury image, and actually isn>t based on knowlage but on
belief.
In the rest of your post you are trying like hell to prove that bad
mutations don>t do any harm. Bad mutations affect in the same way as good
mutations, only in the opposite direction, and v.v.. If you take that there
could be a billions of mutation of which 99.99% are harmfull, your view is
very biased. If mutations are harmfull, organism must do something to stop,
block, neutralise them. This neutralises harmfull as well as good mutations.
Giving the small number of good mutations, plus the possible mechanism of
neutralising mutations, ends up without any chance for mutations to
significaly affect evolution. Watching bacteria in laboratory conditions
doesn>t have anything ot do with what we are talking about. -- Mario

Philip Deitiker · Guest

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:32:07 GMT, "Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> did
some sarious thank>n and scribbled:

[quote]What is the purpose of these Ad Hoc posts?

In its most common form, it is seen as webbing between the 2nd and 3rd toes.
This form is often *inherited* and is not unusual. Syndactyly can also occur
as part of a pattern of other congenital (present from birth) defects
involving the skull, face, and bones. The child may grow having a face that
resembles Edward G. Robinson or J. Edgar Hoover.

Purpose? What is the purpose of anything, actually.
[/quote]
In this case, certainly not to amuse.
It might be interesting if you presented some genetic
evidence in the form of literature and if you show that via
comparative analysis of humans with other apes and monkeys
that this was a derivative mutation. But instead you are
making fun of peoples genetic diseases which I don>t find
very funny, and neither do I find it funny you keep putting
this under the 'vagina' thread. However hypocritical this
may sound you need to learn some tact.
What I am wondering is how long you are going to continue
this sort of abusive musings in s.a.p. or might you find and
alt or talk group to muse yourself in?

charles · Guest

love this stuff.. pondering the brain and evolution... no time for a
proper response, though. I am packing to go to Kill Devil Hills, NC for
the 100th anniversary of the first flight. ought to be fun... they>ve
been planning this celebration for about 20 years!

in other words, i am off-line til next week. thanks for the good
conversation :)
--chas

Nim wrote:
[quote]See in, please.

"charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FD694EC.4030407@mindspring.com...

hi. yes, please see in.

Nim wrote:

Please see in.

"charles" <lmno@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3FD521A4.8050005@mindspring.com...

I think this is only partly true, but "science" (the fMRI & brain-injury
studies) cannot be completely certain.

Brain studies seem to show that the majority of our brain is used for

motor

functions - and that we do use ALL of our brains, not just 10%.

an old fallacy. of course we use our whole brain. but many or most of
us never reach our potential mentally or physically. (and clark is
laughing right now.) my concern in my professional life is that I teach
a child to fully exploit the entirely of the developmental phase...
learn everything during their sensitive period that they are capable.

Best way is to start from the day a child is born by exposing him to many
things to see, bright rooms, people, and etc. VISUAL stimuli. Let the
child also hear a lot of things, talk to the child (not in goo goo gah gah
talk), speak real language to the child. A child kept in a semi-dark room
with no VISUAL stimuli is a child that>s going to be neurologically held
back. When I say child, I mean from the day the child is born.

but it is also true that very discreet portions of the brain do very
precise activities.

(Damasio

and others). They also show that if you don>t know something with

somatic

markers intact, you don>t really know it at all - that is, you might
cerebrally learn it, but fail in the ability to apply it, or variations

of

it, in real life when opportunity arises.

for all physical-movement related action i presume.

No, that>s not what Damasio and others show. I mean in the mental realm
when it comes to application of what they think they know. Memorizing
things, math or otherwise, doesn>t mean the person can logically apply such
things. They fail at the last stages of logic in real life, often enough.
As Damasio puts it "they don>t even know what it is they don>t know," they
lack the ability.

dreaming, which is

of course not unique to humans, may be purely ideated. maybe that>s not
a good example.. since a mechanism shuts off the physical movemnet part.
how about Einstein sitting in a post office and coming up with general
relativity?

How about Ramanujan coming up with immediate answers to math problems not
previously solved (and what he claimed happened OH well)... I>d say it>s
limbic. Seeing something that way is a lot different from using logic to
solve it. I>ve had the experience. It>s like "sight" - you know the answer
without having done the actual math (and since it>s math, it>s provable).
Einstein did say he knew it from his muscles. I.e., he felt it. Then he
concluded it.

or you and i sitting here and thinking that we are just a

wee speck on the outer fringe of some galaxy. these are intellectual
exercises that may not have a physical counterpart.

Sure it does - extrapolation, analogy, conclusion. Once you know that
galaxies exist, you can think that way. You see ants. They are tiny. What
are ants crawling on a human? Tiny. What might ants think about the
surface they are crawling on? Do they know what a human is? Or is "a
human" just a huge thing, almost as huge, for instance, as the galaxy
compared to us. That>s how such thought actually form; they are grounded in
as-givens we already have with those as-givens sometimes merged and
synthesized. Take the idea of "ray guns" in fiction. Lightening. Bow and
Arrow. Combine: arrows of lightening. Guns: ray guns. It>s still
building on something we know already.

We had to have a brain-change in order to begin writing, not just the
dexterity. it seems that writing may have "stolen" some brain areas
previously used by other functions.

I disagree. The brain change can be there - but without the dexterity,
without 5 figers, it>s not gonna happen. We wouln>t have technology.

well, yes, naturally. but it is beleived that after the thought is
formed and sent thru Broca>s and Weirnecke>s area, and the Angular
Gyrus, that it hits an area of the brain that is finger-movement related
specific to writing...maybe. when i was actually researching this two
years ago, it was an unknown.

Too much is still unknown about the brain. Neurology is an infant science.
I know a neurotoxicologist and have seen some seriously "non layman" papers
that got published that he wrote. I don>t hear a peep about any of it in the
layman>s press. The stuff>s so complex that a regular M.D. can>t read it
with understanding. I asked!

IMHO, when we are looking at HSS, it must be assumed that EVERYTHING has
a counterpart in the brain. a "control center" of some sort. a few
pain receptors interact at the spinal cord (which is merely an extension
of the brain anyway.)

I>d say that this is true whether the organism is HSS or not! I>d assume
that a dog>s brain is greatly involved with the sense of smell. More or
less, dogs might "see" in a world of smell. We don>t. We can>t even
imagine what that might be like.

in montessori education (which is my field and the bias from which i
speak), it is beleived that every new child development milestone first
has the corresponding development occur in the brain

Never heard of Montessori, but otherwise I understand what you said. Yes.
I>d say that all somatic things are also brain things. Also you then must
be familiar with the idea that every physical "scar" or emotional "scar"
done to a child has a corresponding "scar" in the brain - it just can>t be
seen as visibly. You can see changes in behavior (sometimes!) - but if so,
then there is a corresponding change in neurological development. Or,
things that should have developed do not develop, or develop improperly.

and then it is

practiced repeatedly in the physical movement until mastered. (and in
the case of say, typing, once learned and mastered, then a different
portion of the brain my be "used" for the "writing" activity. like
riding a bike... once it is learned, it doesn>t have to be thought
about.) the issue is, for me anyway, did a portion of the brain
"change" or "evolve" in order for 12 kya humans to begin writing?

That>s a tricky question. Firstly, there>d have to be something useful to
write upon before that AND for it to have sustained wear through the years
for us to find it later on. You>d need three things to be present:
something able to make marks or stains; something to write on or stain; and
something used that would last for quite a long time, long enough for us to
go find it. We have found few samples of writing, in caves, etc. Surely,
that>s not all there was!

Writing is probably related to

increased arithmetic ability. At any rate, it does seem to be about

the

same time as increased agriculture... say, about 12 kya in the middle
east. all of this is beside your point.

Mmm, no, disagree. There are too many primitive humans (even today) that do
a form of agriculture that had no writing at all until very very recently -
and they lived that way for thousands of years. There has to, above all, be
the NEED for writing. There are tribes even 100 years ago that had only
oral traditions, no writing or reading. They (the ones I know of in the
Arctic areas) were easily able to learn reading/writing when they had to
learn it (by law). They also prove to be quite intelligent (high IQ too).
Humans can write because humans have hands - but that doesn>t mean that
groups of humans WILL write. Looking at history, it shows that humans did
not write unless they had to, they found it useful in order to do something
other than just write something down. Personal anecdote. Prior to
internet, I seldom wrote anyone a letter and never wrote my own family a
letter. I used the phone instead. Be that as it may, phone is oral
communication. Much preferred. Humans that had no writing, proved to be
quite capable of thinking very abstractly, including methematically. They
had no need for writing.

Drawings, if pictograms can be considered writing, predate agriculture.
This is not to say we>ve found all the samples of this, or even samples

of

humans making marks on things. Arithmetic ability, especially of a

certain

kind, was found to be centered in the limbic brain - not the frontal.

It

was a shown to neurologists.

although it is species-specific the degree to which the limbic brain can
recognize "four." some animals don>t seem to have kept that ability.

No no, it was found that the higher mathemtical abilities that very few
people have, were rooted in the limbic brain. Check up on it. I don>t have
a citation. Math ability was also seen to be related to musical ability -
that is, if you have the math you have the music. But if you have the
music, you do not necessarily have the math!

I assume that art or cave painting or what-have-you "evolved" at the
same moment as modern humans (HSS) ... what... 200 kya? depends on who
you talk to for that number. somewhere between 1.8 mya and now.

Probably so, but I never forget that this is "all we found so far" and that
most of what might have been there might not have been durable. (Use any
paint lately? LOL) What gets found would have had to have been in an area
that was isolated for a long time, not erased, not written over, not chopped
up and used for something else. That goes for runes on rocks, too. Say I
find some slap of rock with scribbles on it and have no idea what it is. It
could be early HSS writing, then again it could be some gang that wrote it
last week. I need the slab for something and I smooth it out. The writing
is gone.

i am thinking specifically of the "counting" of agricultural products
that seems to have arisen simultaneously with increased population
size.. villages perhaps... and trade and city states and all that ...
about 12 kya ago. The current "belief" (since evidence may one day show
differently) is that people counted, for example, bushels of wheat, and
put a token into a clay ball to represent that. then marked the outside
of the clay with how many were inside. then later that became just an
impresison on clay and then suddenly writing sprang from that. in the
classic sense of evolution, there was no time for selection or anything.
did this also happen at an earlier time with speech? which is known
to have specific function areas in the brain? That would argue FOR a
portion of the brain to now be devoted to writing. That is, where is
the line of demarcation between evolution and cultural advancement?

Not sure if a line can be drawn. Also consider that with cultural
advancement, evolution is changed, and vice versa.. Even what we eat
changes us as we change/alter the foods. Say, for example, your diet and
mode of work is back breaking and not easy like gathering or hunting was.
It>s two ways. What is a life of such aching work, especially if you eat
things that give you tooth decay, doing to do for the way you THINK? It>s
definitely going to change the way you think! With agriculture came a lot
of pain and tooth decay. We start thinking about things differently based
on the WORK we have to do - in different environments - in our daily lives.
The "I need two bushels and let this one mark stand for 2 bushels" is a nice
theory. But it doesn>t explain how people with no writing did the same
things.

--chas

--chas

Nim wrote:

You actually think that if an animal "willed" to have something because

it

wanted to be able to DO something - that this would evolve? LMAO.

We write BECAUSE we have dextrous fingers. We did not "evolve

dexterity" so

that we would be able to write because a group of humans wanted to

write.

MOST mutations are disadvantagous. Not all. Whether or not mutations

are

advantageous or not have to do with the environment the organism is in.

"Need to have" has nothing to do with the organs/limbs we have.

"Needing to

have fingers" is not why we have fingers. You lose a tail. If it>s
advantageous there is selection for no tails - and they either out

compete

the animals with tails, or speciate.

Take wild types. Genes drop out. If you regard a gene deletion as a
mutation, or something similar, then go from there. Genes drop out -

you

end up with a variant of the wild type. Speciation occurs eventually.
big snip

[/quote]

Nim · Guest

I suggest you take up that argument with the evolutionary biologists, hands
on, that wrote it. I>ll repeat it. It is not my view, though I do agree
with it and also consider other factors that cause things to change/evolve.
It is THE view, Mario

"Mario Petrinovich" <mario.petrinovic@zg.tel.hr> wrote in message
news:branst$k6l$1@ls219.htnet.hr...

[quote]snipped your arguments: reread it.
[/quote]
Adaptation requires two things: mutation AND natural selection, which is
what I said. Mutation is a random change in the genetic structure of an
animal or organism. But while most mutations are harmful and don>t survive,
NOT ALL fit that category, as I said. A mutation can ALSO cause a useful
change. Natural selection is the next thing - useful mutations don>t go
anywhere or get inherited if selection is not made in FAVOR of those that
have it. If the mutations are useful, they survive and multiply due to that.

I got an idea! (Never say a stomach ache is bad when it can give me an
idea).... There IS something that breeds fast enough for you to SEE this
happening. Take the well-known E. coli bacteria. Lemme go find something -
it>s got to be on the web by now. (Magical thinking - you see, the stomach
ache I have, caused by the E Coli, is due to the E Coli saying, "HEY, tell
Mario about us!") Truth to tell, my stomach gave me the idea.

OK: the E. Coli shall have the stage.....
"In about 100 days, 1,000 generations of E. coli were watched. Lenski>s team
increased the supply of mutations in two ways: They increased the E. coli
numbers and they used strains of bacteria that have elevated *mutation*
rates.
"Meanwhile, the first generations were put on ice for storage. Later, they
were thawed and put into competition with their descendants to measure how
well the new family lineage had evolved.

"The result: *Increasing the number of mutations speeds up evolution.* Even
though there are more detrimental mutations, natural selection still ensured
the survival of the fittest beneficial mutations.

"The new generations of bacteria ultimately were made stronger by their
beneficial mutations and were able to out-compete their ancestors (the ones
without the mutations).

OK? Still mutations occur, most are deliterious, SOME are GOOD. I opt for
a lot of other things causing evolution to the point of speciation when a
group WITHIN the population splits off - and that would be retroviruses,
drastic environmental changes (so drastic that the whole species almost
dies) and such things - and definitely NATURAL SELECTION.

Natural selection leads to adaptation - "the accumulation of structural,
physiological or behavioral traits that increase an organism>s fitness" -
but you can view natural selection as selecting AGAINST - not necessarily
selecting for. FITNESS is only that which helps the organism survive and
reproduce in THAT ENVIRONMENT with the traits it has. Reproduction ensures
that there is survival, the genes are carried on. By the way, those that
do not reproduce, in terms of evolution, are UNFIT. As for "fit" - in
malaria endemic areas, heterozygous sickle cell is FIT.

This can cause evolution (the word means changes in gene frequencies in
time) but consider that populations evolve that were already IN a species,
not "species evolve." POPULATIONS evolve. Populations are interbreeding
people of the same species in the same location. (Species are a different
group that MIGHT BE ABLE to interbreed and produce VIABLE offspring, but
they don>t necessarily do that). More specifically than just mutation and
natural selection there is MUTATION (change in nucleotide sequences, new
alleles and NEW VARIATIONS); also genetic material gets shuffled differently
during meiosis; NATURAL SELECTION and then, isolation too. Both mutation
and shuffling gets you variations. For humans: 1. Mutation see above on
alleles. 2. Migration or habitat tracking - new alleles are brought in, old
alleles taken out (by people coming and staying, and people leaving for
good) . 3. Random events due to small population size. These can wipe out a
whole population - and their genes. Or a few can go and start a new
population with only the genes they have.

There is the idea of a real population in equilibrium, but I don>t see WHERE
that ever existed because each individual would have to have an equal chance
of mating with any other individual in the population! No such thing.

Finally, Sexual selection - that>s a HUGE thing: mates are selected on the
basis of physical or behavioral characteristics. These are phenotypical,
you can SEE them. You can>t see things in the genes that aren>t expressed -
they aren>t visible. But they are there and they MIGHT express if the
environment is different enough.

Darwin: all species reproduce in excess of the numbers that can survive yet
adult populations remain relatively constant; therefore there must be a
severe struggle for survival, (that struggle can take many forms,
competition or cooperative strategies are BOTH used, nowadays they see more
cooperation than competition when they view the ENTIRE eco niche). All
species vary in many characteristics and some of the variants confer an
advantage or disadvantage in the struggle for life.

The result is a natural selection favoring survival and reproduction of the
more advantageous variants and elimination of the less advantageous
variants - as I said. Sure, you are looking at humans at Chernobyl. Sigh.
Take a look at the E. Coli where you can SEE this in action because they
breed so fast.

What happens when a deliterious mutation is DOMINANT? Sickle cell, if
homozygous, is deadly - if heterozygous - it>s BENEFICIAL to anyone living
where there is malaria.

Nim · Guest

Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.spam > wrote in message
news:0cphtvgt5p1s4ap8th77b4a1oit90uhg9o@4ax.com...
[quote]On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:32:07 GMT, "Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> did
some sarious thank>n and scribbled:

What is the purpose of these Ad Hoc posts?

In its most common form, it is seen as webbing between the 2nd and 3rd
toes.
This form is often *inherited* and is not unusual. Syndactyly can also
occur
as part of a pattern of other congenital (present from birth) defects
involving the skull, face, and bones. The child may grow having a face
that
resembles Edward G. Robinson or J. Edgar Hoover.

Purpose? What is the purpose of anything, actually.

In this case, certainly not to amuse.
It might be interesting if you presented some genetic
evidence in the form of literature and if you show that via
comparative analysis of humans with other apes and monkeys
that this was a derivative mutation. But instead you are
making fun of peoples genetic diseases
[/quote]
I don>t know what causes webbing, but it is inherited, or can be. Your
interpretation, not my intention about the insult. I am making fun of no
one. Though I said it with an *in-joke* in mind (Hoover, Robinson) I was
serious about swimming.

which I don>t find
[quote]very funny, and neither do I find it funny you keep putting
this under the 'vagina' thread. However hypocritical this
may sound you need to learn some tact.
[/quote]
I didn>t create the thread. When I arrived on it, nothing about vaginas was
being discussed that I could see. You suggest I make a new thread? OK.
Done. I don>t find what you made of the thread, insinuating that I find
human vaginas funny, is funny OR fair. Foul call, Phil.

[quote]What I am wondering is how long you are going to continue
this sort of abusive musings in s.a.p. or might you find and
alt or talk group to muse yourself in?
[/quote]
What the hell is abusive? The conversation on the brain and evolution that
I just had on this very thread was a good conversation for me and the other
person involved. I didn>t see you in that conversation at all, but it>s
right here on this thread. That also had nothing to do with the subject of
the thread. But so what?

I did post something standard to Mario. On this thread. I>m on
sci.anthropology.

Making fun. You have a hell of a lot of nerve saying that, never thinking
that that trait might be in my own family. It>s not a disability, you know.

[quote]

[/quote]

Mario Petrinovich · Guest

Nim :
[quote]I suggest you take up that argument with the evolutionary biologists,
hands
on, that wrote it. I>ll repeat it. It is not my view, though I do agree
with it and also consider other factors that cause things to
change/evolve. It is THE view, Mario
[/quote]
I know it is the view. I am not a copy machine, though. I don>t
agree with it, and I tried to show you why. -- Mario

firstjois · Guest

"Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> wrote in message
news:tvzCb.265$mC1.225@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
: I suggest you take up that argument with the evolutionary biologists,
hands
: on, that wrote it. I>ll repeat it. It is not my view, though I do agree
: with it and also consider other factors that cause things to
change/evolve.
: It is THE view, Mario
:
[snip]

Nicely done summary of THE view. Posting this for Mario is sort of like
casting pearls before swine but there are many others who read here that
appreciate the summary.

I was in NC a couple of months ago watching fields of crops which must all
have been planted from the same brand if not bag of seed making the each
crop look pretty uniform. However some bloomed earlier and some later than
others. Regardless of the other variables (more water/less water due to
drainage, etc.) there must still be some variation in the seeds themselves
that might have made a difference under adverse weather conditions.

Wouldn>t have made much difference in this industrial kind of farming but
to the plant type in the wild a few days difference is the setting or
ripening of the seeds might make a great deal of difference to the survival
of that particular plant in a particular area.

Jois.

firstjois · Guest

"firstjois" <firstjoisyike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aYidnWbD-aCgqEai4p2dnA@comcast.com...
:
: "Nim" <yuggya@ppc.com> wrote in message
: news:tvzCb.265$mC1.225@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
: : I suggest you take up that argument with the evolutionary biologists,
: hands
: : on, that wrote it. I>ll repeat it. It is not my view, though I do
agree
: : with it and also consider other factors that cause things to
: change/evolve.
: : It is THE view, Mario
: :
: [snip]
:
: Nicely done summary of THE view. Posting this for Mario is sort of like
: casting pearls before swine but there are many others who read here that
: appreciate the summary.
:
: I was in NC a couple of months ago watching fields of crops which must
all
: have been planted from the same brand if not bag of seed making the each
: crop look pretty uniform. However some bloomed earlier and some later
than
: others. Regardless of the other variables (more water/less water due to
: drainage, etc.) there must still be some variation in the seeds
themselves
: that might have made a difference under adverse weather conditions.
:
: Wouldn>t have made much difference in this industrial kind of farming but
: to the plant type in the wild a few days difference is the setting or
: ripening of the seeds might make a great deal of difference to the
survival
: of that particular plant in a particular area.
:
: Jois.

Well, damn. I hadn>t read this thread at all because I knew the original
poster was a troll, but picked up Nim>s good post and replied. My
apologies to all.

Jois


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5