A thought on the big moose post.
 

In Darwin's time the biggest and baddest suvived. However, in modern day trophy hunting the biggest and the baddest are the prized possessions. The sickly deer is left to walk on by, the small and weak fish is let go. Already geneticists are seeing signs of this effecting genetic lines. The biggest and the strongest fish are being replaced with smaller and often more sickly animals.

Now I totally understand the need to hunt animals such as deer. I am not stating an opinion on whether hunting is right or wrong, I'm merely making an observation on the way hunting is done.

I would provide a link to some papers, but that takes too much work and I doubt many would read it. This should be common sense anyway.

Feel free to discuss.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

I thought the same thing when I saw the picture. Humans are good at this, there used to be giant everything until we came around apparently. [censored] badgers the size of bears n [censored]. If only humans would stick to hunting prokaryotes, the world be a much better place.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
badgers the size of bears

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? How big were the bears?

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
badgers the size of bears

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? How big were the bears?

[/ QUOTE ]gigantic. Coincidently, most of these giants did not survive the ice age.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

This is pretty interesting. I never really thought about humas being the reason for animals decreasing in size over the millenia.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

i have always been close to hunting b/c of my father, so i was either going to love it or hate it. my dad has traveled to africa 3 times and killed a lion, leopard and cape buffalo and is going back in november to tajikistan to kill a rare ram. he has been to alaska numerous times and killed bears, moose, elk, caribou, and this doesn't even crack the surface on the big game that he has hunted and killed.

with him he started like every hunter killing his first dove, or 8 point...something small. then he graduated to driving down to south and west texas ranches killing big white tail (some boon & crockett). then after two decades it was as if he had hunted everything and he moved on to animals in other countries such as africa and spain. i have always thought this was odd, why would someone spend so much money and time on this?

the answer is power. in our life we want power and control over something and hunting is exactly that. now my dad is strange and if you ask any of my friends [censored] crazy cause he adds an element of danger when he hunts by climbing mountains and hunting in the most extreme conditions. i hate hunting, i think its stupid and a waste of time but thats just my opinion, if i thought about it the things in my life that i really care about come down to control and having power over someone too (baseball, p**er etc).

this has at least been my theory for a few years since i have always thought my dad was crazy when it came to hunting and i wanted to at least put an answer to it.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

well one thing to think about, certain animals are likely to decrease in size, while others are likely to increase in size. It just depends on what humans hunt.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4AF5FAF9FDAE00

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had never thought of this either, and I'm surprised that this could actually be a big effect.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I had never thought about this. I am googling for research right now. Very interesting. Thanks for posting a very interesting point to consider and discuss. I will return to this thread after having done some reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4AF5FAF9FDAE00

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

J-Stor it please
 

ok, time for you kids with your college's library to get crackin.

please link/post J-Stor results for the following searches:

1) evolution + hunting

2) Hunter Selection + effect

3) [censored] sapien + Evolution+ hunting

this should give us a nice bredth of papers on the subject.

thanks guys.

Barron

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

I can speak to the whitetail deer portion of this.

On a public land type situation, where there is typically lots of hunting pressure, this isn't often an issue because most animals of young age are killed....only the smartest tend to survive and there aren't nearly as many animals with large antlers.

On private land, if there is a good management program, there are actually MORE big deer because the hunters shoot off the inferior deer in addition to the large deer, and we never shot any deer that were less than fully mature, unless they were inferior. So what you end up with is fewer deer, the bigger dominant deer are the ones that mate, and the inferior deer aren't able to pass on their genes, or they are simply dead....either way there are actually a larger number of big deer on a properly managed property than smaller deer.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution takes hundreds of years when the environment is stable.

Bacteria under a UV lamp evolve in days if not hours. I know I've done hundreds of experiments. It's all about the strength of the selective mechanism. Humans are a very strong selective mechanism. You also vastly underestimate the impact humans have on the planet. There has been a 90% decrease in large oceanic fish since 1960. Google it for articles. There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to know where to begin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are definitely a HUGE selective mechanism, but moreso via endeavors other than big game hunting. I didn't say that hunting does not have an influence, but it would seem rather counterintuitive to think that animals would develop a mechanism to stop getting hunted by a limited predator (humans) compared to a natural predator which would be greatly advantaged by having its prey weaker.

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans. I'm just hard pressed to see that happening. Not saying it could not be the case, I'm just don't see it happening.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Interesting article, but I would predict this type of study would only hold true for animals with very few natural predators and who do not rely on their size and strength to do their own hunting - i.e. grazers or herbivores.

I highly doubt this will hold true for many fish or something like a deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, watch strange days on planet earth w/ edward norton.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was much more impressed when you quoted the Nature article.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a well made series and your comment sounds like something a pedantic moron would say.

[ QUOTE ]

Please show me some articles that where an animals gets smaller when that animal has lots of natural predators and is hunted by humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

as far as fish:
Strange days w/ planet earth has lots of good info.
So does the bbc.

As far as land animals:

Come on man we hunt the predators. If it's a big animal we kill it. Wolves went extinct in yellowstone in 1930 and weren't replaced until recently (with much protest). Deer in most parts of the planet don't get the pressure because everyone kills the wolves. African lions and leapords recieve the same pressure from trophy hunting.

Use your brain.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Very interesting post. Thanks for the link.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first reaction as well. However, I haven't done any serious study on the subject, so I chose not to post until I had at least read whatever links I could find or Wacki provided.

Since you've apparently researched the other side of the coin, care to post some links or references for those of us trying to learn more?

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

This is such a garbage quote- animlas don't set themselves into equilibirm, competition and predators (and other natural selection measures) set limits. Without these limits basically every single species would eat them selves out of thier food sources.
Also viruses do not do this (any more than anything else)- the only times that viruses wipe out huge segments of populations is where there is massive overcrowding or a lack of genetic variability or another "unnatural" circumstance.
This quote shows an utter lack of understanding of biologicalorganisms... guess thats why its made by a computer.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Damn you diablo. Here is one link from Nature which is a top journal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff:

We use simple animals such as the marine snail Aplysia as models that permit detailed tests of hypotheses about the evolution of memory mechanisms from adaptive cellular reactions to injury. Knowing the neuronal circuitry involved in defensive behavior, we are examining alterations in individual neurons that contribute to aversive learning and memory, neural regeneration, and to the functional equivalents of neuropathic pain, hyperalgesia, and analgesia. Neurophysiological (intracellular recording/stimulation, microinjection, voltage clamping), pharmacological, morphological, molecular, and behavioral methods are used.

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This idea negates the fact that most animals are not killed by humans. Most animals have natural predators which require them to be the biggest, fastest, and strongest.

Almost all of our food is mass produced. We are not getting most food from a game hunter.

There is no way that evolution is making a trend towards weaker and smaller animals...not at this point anyhow. Not unless natural predators get guns and start going for big kills only.

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This was my first reaction as well. However, I haven't done any serious study on the subject, so I chose not to post until I had at least read whatever links I could find or Wacki provided.

Since you've apparently researched the other side of the coin, care to post some links or references for those of us trying to learn more?

[/ QUOTE ]

I had the same reaction and had not chimed in yet for the same reasons.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Interesting.

Tangentially, a good while ago I suggested the following: since, ON AVERAGE, dumber humans are having more kids and smarter humans are having fewer, the human race might be devolving in terms of average genetic potential for intelligence.

It used to be that rich or successful people had loads of kids--this was the pattern for untold centuries, when having kids who survived the high mortality rates was in fact a form of insurance for the parents. At some point in the 20th century, however, this began to swing in the other direction. The current model of smarter, more successful people having fewer kids has been in place for decades now, and the lowest socio-economic groups has been having more kids.

I drew a lot of criticism for this suggestion, especially from Cyrus (lol), who maintained that intelligence is not passed on genetically. However I believe that intelligence is a result of the combination of genetics and environmental factors, and that some potential for intelligence can be passed on genetically--and probably is passed on to a degree, at least on average.

So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are now in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

Any guesses from you guys as to whether this might possibly be happening?

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm wondering if, from a genetic standpoint, humans on average are in the process of getting somewhat dumber as generations go by. My guess would be "yes", but that's only a guess. And I admit to basing this guess not only on the above theory, but partially on personal anecdotal experience (such as my experiences buying things at checkout registers in stores, now versus 25 years ago), even though I know that anecdotal experience may be of limited or no value.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]

I had the same reaction and had not chimed in yet for the same reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that is 3 people that have had the same reaction. And I insulted the OP (of this reaction). I guess this shows I have emotional issues or something, but whatever. I just know this thread is going to suck me in when I'm the only one giving sources. Sorry for being so hard on you sackup.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4281171.stm

There are world records still being set, but there are counter arguements to that.

Ugh... work to do. Later.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff: ....

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF I thought you were a computer engineer.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Further, it takes a long as time for any major trends in evolution to occur, not just a few hundred years.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

Say there are one million of an animal. 200,000 of them are big and strong. If humans go hunt 150,000 of them, that species' genetic line will be much different. It's not evolution, but the gene pool will be radically different.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to systematic genocide, it can happen in months, days, or even hours depending on the size of the community.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying the theory seems to make sense, at least on its surface; and that I've also encountered many more retards ringing cash registers than I used to encounter. When I was in my teens and twenties it seemed people ringing registers at corner drugstores, gas stations, and later convenience stores, weren't half-wits. They were just average people, give or take a bit. I didn't run into ones who could hardly do their job. Now however I seem to run into a lot of them. Granted it's personal anecdotal evidence which may be of little or no significance, and may actually illustrate another principal at work in some way, but it does seem to fit in with the theory I came up with. Basically I seem to run into more nitwits everyehere than I did two or three decades ago. And it isn't even close. But that's not the main reason I suspect this sort of devolution may be happening; rather it just seems like it would quite possibly happen if on average the dumber people were to start outbreeding the smarter people. And actually they have been doing so for quite a few decades now.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
youre right technically about evolution, but genetic lines can be altered in a decade or two. if humans go and kill out all of the strongest of a species, the genetic lines of that species will be changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

When it comes to systematic genocide, it can happen in months, days, or even hours depending on the size of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true. my "decades" word was mostly referring to game hunting.

i get the impression that im in a thread with people who know more than AP bio, but you can have a change in teh gene pool without evolution

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Thanks, wacki. FYI, I'm familiar with Nature, as I have been either a co-author or contributor to articles published in both Nature and Science. It was stuff long ago having to do with cellular mechanisms of learning. This type of stuff: ....

I worked for Terry Walters (who worked under Eric Kandel) for a few years in high school and college.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF I thought you were a computer engineer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was contemplating going into science, but stuff just took too long. I happened to be working for Terry for a few years (summers and part-time job) when he was at the tail-end of some research that had been going on for about 15 years. It was a fun time, but not for me long-term.

I did high-tech tech stuff (a little development and some distributed systems architecture/design) for a couple of years, then got bored and switched to the business side of things. Have pretty much just been doing software-related business stuff as an adult.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Well, I think your idea actually has some merit. The big problem with it is that you're assuming that wealth = intelligence. While there is probably some correlation, there's a LOT more that goes into who is wealthy and who isn't than just natural intelligence. The people having the most kids these days, people in third world countries, have almost no chance at success no matter what their natural intelligence might be. It has a lot more to do with the history of race and lingering economic inequality than it does actual intelligence.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are evaluating the entirety of human intelligence based on your experience checking out of the grocery store? IIRC, you are close to being a senior citizen. I guarantee you no one in my much younger age group would be dumb enough to make prognostications on human intelligence based on what they see in the Enquirer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.

I'm saying the theory seems to make sense, at least on its surface; and that I've also encountered many more retards ringing cash registers than I used to encounter. When I was in my teens and twenties it seemed people ringing registers at corner drugstores, gas stations, and later convenience stores, weren't half-wits. They were just average people, give or take a bit. I didn't run into ones who could hardly do their job. Now however I seem to run into a lot of them. Granted it's personal anecdotal evidence which may be of little or no significance, and may actually illustrate another principal at work in some way, but it does seem to fit in with the theory I came up with. Basically I seem to run into more nitwits everyehere than I did two or three decades ago. And it isn't even close. But that's not the main reason I suspect this sort of devolution may be happening; rather it just seems like it would quite possibly happen if on average the dumber people were to start outbreeding the smarter people. And actually they have been doing so for quite a few decades now.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.thelin.net/laurent/cinema...hn_kapelos.jpg
Aw bull [censored], man. Come on Vern, the kids haven't changed, you have!

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Yes Phoenix, that's all part of it; now do upwardly mobile professionals today tend to have lots of kids? No, they don't, whereas blue-collar and welfare types do tend to have more kids.

I agree some of it has to do with the things you mention; yet how many really bright people today--even not rich folk--say scientists, researchers, good writers, etc.--how many of them are having lots of kids? Not many, so their genes aren't being passed on as much.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Oh of course I agree with the trends you're mentioning (although I'm no sociologist so I can't definitively say they're true). It does seem like the current trend is successful people having fewer kids than in the past (this is for a lot of reasons, including women's increased involvement in the workforce). What I'm saying is that while it may be true that wealthier people are having fewer kids than poor people these days, that does not necessarily mean that smarter people are having fewer kids than dumb people. The correlation between wealth and intelligence isn't definitely direct, and this is especially true on a global level.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

I agree there are many variables, and other things to consider, and I'm not trying to argue that this is a sound theory. It just seems to me that there might be something to it.

Re: A thought on the big moose post.
 

Swordfisy used to weigh ~250 lbs if I remeber correctly. The big ones now are~100 lbs. Due to over fishing.