A thought on the big moose post. - Page 3

Phoenix1010 · #21 10-08-2005, 05:43 PM

Very interesting post. Thanks for the link.

RunDownHouse · #22 10-08-2005, 05:43 PM

[ 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?

tolbiny · #23 10-08-2005, 05:49 PM

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.

Ulysses · #24 10-08-2005, 05:55 PM

[ 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.

Ulysses · #25 10-08-2005, 05:57 PM

[ 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.

MMMMMM · #26 10-08-2005, 06:23 PM

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?

#27 10-08-2005, 06:29 PM

[ 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.

wacki · #28 10-08-2005, 06:31 PM

[ 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.

wacki · #29 10-08-2005, 06:33 PM

[ 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.

Voltron87 · #30 10-08-2005, 06:35 PM

[ 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.