Humans and domesticated animals have biologically changed each others bodies and brains
Immortalist
> result of coming into existence.
Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
coming into existence.
The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
presence. If we got rid of all domesticates something ould be missing
from our biology and neural firing patterns. Of course we could evolve
away from this coevolutionary dependence but it may take 100s of
generations if possible at all since "culture" can interfere with the
process now.
In a broad sense, biological coevolution is "the change of a
biological object triggered by the change of a related object".
Coevolution can occur at multiple levels of biology: it can be as
microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein,
or as macroscopic as covarying traits between different species in an
environment. Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts
selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others'
evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
The rise of agriculture, and domestication of animals, led to stable
human settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
"For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in
order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-
evolving with."
The hypothesis is intended to explain two different phenomena: the
advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the
constant evolutionary arms race between competing species. In the
first (microevolutionary) version, by making every individual an
experiment when mixing mother's and father's genes, sexual
reproduction may allow a species to evolve quickly just to hold onto
the ecological niche that it already has in the ecosystem. In the
second (macroevolutionary) version, the probability of extinction for
groups (usually families) of organisms is hypothesized to be constant
within the group and random among groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen
http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/mr_redqueen.html
We selected various traits in animals and plants and more or less made
them grow out in the expreme. Our self-produced culture and artifacts
have stretched language and human nature out of a primate. Culture, at
whatever stage of development at the time, became and environmental
pressure and selector. We made it, reproduce it, and improve it. Kinda
like another kind of organism in a romantic sense.
Fred C. Dobbs
>> animals are not "better off" as a
>> result of coming into existence.
>
> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
> coming into existence.
>
> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
> presence.
False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
change to have occurred.
M Purcell
wrote:
Disease resistances have.
Fred C. Dobbs
They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed. It hasn't
been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
Immortalist
wrote:
Of course what you claiming assumes that you have some sort of
evidence for just how long it takes for evolutionary change to take
place in humans and animals.
The Tame Silver Fox is the result of nearly 50 years of experiments in
the Soviet Union and Russia to domesticate the silver morph of the Red
Fox. Notably, the foxes not only become more tame, but more dog-like
as well: the new foxes lost their distinctive musky "fox smell",
became more friendly with humans, put their ears down (like dogs),
wagged their tails when happy and began to vocalize and bark like
domesticated dogs.
Scientists were interested by the topic of domestication, and how
wolves were able to become tame, like dogs. They saw some retention of
juvenile traits by adult dogs: both morphological ones such as skulls
that were unusually broad for their length, and behavioural ones such
as whining, barking and submissiveness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox
Foxes bred for tameability in a 40-year experiment exhibit remarkable
transformations that suggest an interplay between behavioral genetics
and development.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807641/posts
Scientists are using DNA analysis to understand our prehistory: the
evolution of humans; their relation to the Neanderthals, who populated
Europe and the Near East; and Homo erectus, who roamed the steppes of
Asia. Most importantly, geneticists can trace the movements of a
little band of human ancestors, numbering perhaps no more than 150,
who crossed the Red Sea from east Africa about 50,000 years ago.
Within a few thousand years, their descendents, Homo sapiens, became
masters of all they surveyed, the other humanoid species having become
extinct.
...this DNA analysis shows that evolution isn't restricted to the
distant past: Iceland has been settled for only 1,000 years, but the
inhabitants have already developed distinctive genetic traits. Wade
expands his survey to cover the development of language and the
domestication of man's best friend. And while "race" is often a dirty
word in science, one of the book's best chapters shows how racial
differences can be marked genetically and why this is important, not
least for the treatment of diseases. ...DNA analysis is rewriting the
history of mankind.
Before the Dawn: Recovering the
Lost History of Our Ancestors
by Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/sr=8-1/
http://bensbookblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/before-dawn-by-nicholas-wade.html
the effect that culture has on the underlying genes. Certain
epigenetic rules—that is, certain ways in which the mind develops or
is most likely to develop—cause individuals to adopt cultural choices
that enable them to survive and reproduce more successfully. Over many
generations these rules, and also the genes prescribing them, tend to
increase in the population. Hence culture affects genetic evolution,
just as the genes affect cultural evolution...
...There is a powerful tendency for the brain to evolve into a
perpetually growing system that combines cultural innovation with
genetic influence. In the end, when any intelligent DNA-based species
such as Homo sapiens emerges, the individual mind must be able to
reflect upon problems and make choices, but its growth and development
are biologically programed to take certain directions in preference to
others. We called this intermediate form of learning gene-culture
transmission. To summarize the picture of all possible worlds briefly,
there are three conceivable ways of transmitting culture from one
member of the society to another.
Pure genetic transmission. The eidylon way. Although various choices
exist, and individuals may be aware of them, only one can ever be
preferred. Learning takes place but is rigidly channeled.
Pure cultural transmission. The xenidrin way. Multiple choices exist,
and all are equally attractive and easily transmitted. The choices
made by individuals depend entirely on culture and not at all on
biological predispositions, which do not exist.
Gene-culture transmission. The human way. Although an immense array of
possibilities can be learned, biological properties in the sense
organs and brain make it more likely that certain choices will be
preferred over others.
Even if a species could be created to resemble the xenidrins, with
pure cultural transmission, evolution will eventually carry it from
the blank slate and into a culture based on gene-culture transmission.
We went on to calculate the average number of generations needed to
take a xenidrin-like species away from this extreme condition. We
found that the time is reduced to just a few generations if there are
many choices available.
The conception that began to emerge is that genes and culture are held
together by an elastic but unbreakable leash. As culture surges
forward by means of innovation and the introduction of new ideas and
artifacts from the outside, it is constrained and directed to some
extent by the genes. At the same time, the pressure of cultural
innovation affects the survival of the genes and ultimately alters the
strength and torque of the genetic leash.
To see how the linkage between genes and culture must arise, consider
a blank-slate species, programed to make choices strictly according to
cultural tradition, never influenced by inner biological urges or
automatic procedures of thought. It is inevitable that some of the
choices available to the society (say in diet, sexual behavior, or
ways of counting) will confer greater survival and reproductive
ability on the members who make one choice and spurn another. It is
also inevitable that over a period of generations new genetic
mutations and recombinations will arise that predispose individuals to
make the adaptively superior choices. The new genetic types will
spread through the population at the expense of the old. The species
will evolve in such a way as to depart from the blank slate, and
relatively soon compared to many other forms of genetic change...
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
Immortalist
Any constant or stable pattern of activity, whether domesticated
animals or particular sustained environmental patterns, will influence
the selection of mutations and gene pool variations to the extent that
bodily and behavioral changes can take place very quickly.
There is a mutation rate and environmental factors influence which
mutations are beneficial, even in recent human history. The same with
domesticated animals.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>> coming into existence.
>>
>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>>> presence.
>>
>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>> change to have occurred.
>
> Of course what you claiming assumes that you have some sort of
> evidence for just how long it takes for evolutionary change to take
> place in humans and animals.
It's known by biologists - you are not a biologist - to be much longer
than the short amount of time humans have kept domesticated animals.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Jun 20, 8:14 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>>>> coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>>>>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>>>>> presence.
>>
>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>> change to have occurred.
>>
>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed. It hasn't
>> been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
>
> Any constant or stable pattern of activity, whether domesticated
> animals or particular sustained environmental patterns, will influence
> the selection of mutations and gene pool variations to the extent that
> bodily and behavioral changes can take place very quickly.
Disease resistances haven't changed. The pathogens have changed.
M Purcell
Are you unaware of the more deadly diseases of swine and avian flu due
to domesticated animals, as well as bubonic plague and AIDS arising
from animal vectors in close contact with humans, or the decimation of
native Americans from diseases brought by resistant Europeans?
John Stafford
<5fb489f7-b1f6-461f...@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
M Purcell <sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
Incorrect.
> Disease resistances have.
Yes, they have.
And other human genetic changes have been selected; some humans have
'evolved', if you will, in the past ten thousand years. The changes are
not yet universal, but they exist. We have discussed this before, but if
you wish to catch-up, look into lactose tolerance, and as Purcell
suggests, disease resistance.
Immortalist
Thats only half true. The process works like it did for cockroaches
and DDT pesticides. Most roaches died but some were resistant, a trait
that mutated at some point into the roach gene pool, and they
flourished in the presence of this poison.
I believe that both the pathogens and resistances change and evolve in
an evolutionary tit for tat arms race. Game theory explains how rules
of evolution are.
Red Queen's race is an evolutionary hypothesis. The term is taken from
the Red Queen's race in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. The
Red Queen said, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the
same place." The Red Queen Principle can be stated thus:
Fred C. Dobbs
Way to contradict yourself! First is the conflation of domesticated
animals (swine, fowl) from whom humans get flu, with wild animals (apes)
from whom we may have got AIDS. But this thread was only about
domesticated animals, so your point about AIDS is irrelevant.
Second, even the flu strains are not in any way proof that *humans* have
changed genetically as a result of domestication of animals. Cases of
bird flu in Europe several years ago were thought to have been
transmitted by wild fowl.
Fred C. Dobbs
You have no evidence of any human mutations directly tied to the
domestication of animals.
Immortalist
It is known to mathematicians that 2+2=4 but this doesn't make the
statement false when I claim that 2+2=4 even if I ain't a
mathematician. You appear to be substituting and "appeal or begging
for authority" in place of any evidence for your argument. It appears
rather dogmatic also in that its like your saying that "I say so so
thats the end of the matter". I can relay what is known by any
biologist. In the philosophy of science this is one of the main forms
of evidence we can get, the sociology of the research community and
ways to communicate between themselves and how the general public can
communicate about general scientific ideas.
That won't work, either attack my evidence as somehow flawed or
present some counter-evidence for what you believe is a stronger
theory.
Fred C. Dobbs
Not comparable. In your silly 2+2 analogy, you are agreeing with
mathematicians. In your bullshit about human evolution, you are
disagreeing with the consensus among biologists.
Immortalist
True, at this moment I don't but I do posses the strong principle that
ALL stables patterns of objects, behavior or anything, that are
present in the environment does definitely influence which mutations
are selected for. If that principle is true it would be absurd to
claim that domesticates over the last 25,000 years have not cause any
influence on which mutations remained in our gene pool. So I do think
that some of those "biologists" works that I have in my collection do
show evidence for "coevolution of species to each other" and I will
relay this information to you from the community.
Remember there is such a thing as the "mutation rate" and this rate
didn't stop just because a human got milk.
Fred C. Dobbs
Good for you, but that's nothing but furious backpedaling.
Fred C. Dobbs
> In article
> <5fb489f7-b1f6-461f...@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> M Purcell<sacs...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>
>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>>
>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>>> coming into existence.
>>>
>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>>>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>>>> presence.
>>>
>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>> change to have occurred.
>
> Incorrect.
No, it's correct.
>
>> Disease resistances have.
>
> Yes, they have.
They haven't. The diseases are new.
Immortalist
If that were true you would be able to present this "consensus" that
argues against my position. It will do you no good to just claim
something is true or false without providing some evidence for your
claims.
But I insist that the argument style you are using is identical to the
2+2=4 argument style I am using to contradict it. If you had evidence
for what this consensus said you wouldn't have to resort to replacing
the evidence for ridicule of good critical reasoning about mistakes
and fallacies in logic Holmes.
Bite this;
In a broad sense, biological coevolution is "the change of a
biological object triggered by the change of a related object".
Coevolution can occur at multiple levels of biology: it can be as
microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein,
or as macroscopic as covarying traits between different species in an
environment. Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts
selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others'
evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
Stamped with the Queens seal of fickin approval!
M Purcell
No contradiction, AIDS appears in monkeys in close contact with
humans.
> Second, even the flu strains are not in any way proof that *humans* have
> changed genetically as a result of domestication of animals. Cases of
> bird flu in Europe several years ago were thought to have been
> transmitted by wild fowl.
Apparently you also missed the last part of my post.
Immortalist
In a broad sense, biological coevolution is "the change of a
Beam Me Up Scotty
The "talk to your dog like a baby gene" makes people who have dogs/pets
stupid. Like the doge actually understands normal English much less a
"baby talk" version.....
Then there's the gene that allows people to believe that animals have a
brain that processes things like normal humans, and they make cartoons
of animals that express human emotion better than most humans. Talk
about an evolutionary black hole?
M Purcell
I've always been fasinated by the popularity of bestiaries during the
Middle Ages and believe we are animals rather than the other way
around.
Fred C. Dobbs
Hmm...examples featuring humans...
M Purcell
wrote:
> On 6/20/2010 9:09 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> > In a broad sense, biological coevolution is "the change of a
> > biological object triggered by the change of a related object".
> > Coevolution can occur at multiple levels of biology: it can be as
> > microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein,
> > or as macroscopic as covarying traits between different species in an
> > environment. Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts
> > selective pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others'
> > evolution
>
Are you seriously suggesting humans did not domesticate plants and
animals or that this domestication did not allow an increased survival
ability?
Fred C. Dobbs
I'm stating, not merely "suggesting", that there has been no biological
change in humans resulting from their domestication of livestock.
Immortalist
Yes there are some humans that have evolved the ability to digest
dairy related Lactose while other human groups cannot. The evidence
indicates that it is more reasonable to believe that those humans who
had domesticated cattle in the parts of Africa, the Middle East and
Europe, have actually evolved the ability to turn on their pre weening
lactose tolerance genes. Here is the example of human/cow coevolution;
Around ten thousand years ago, humans developed agriculture, which
substantially altered their diet. This change in diet may also have
altered human biology; with the spread of dairy farming providing a
new and rich source of food, leading to the evolution of the ability
to digest lactose in some adults [1] [2].
[1] Krebs JR (September 2009). "The gourmet ape: evolution and human
food preferences". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 90.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/707S
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19656837
[2] Holden C, Mace R (October 1997). "Phylogenetic analysis of the
evolution of lactose digestion in adults". Hum. Biol. 69.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9299882
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
Mutations that keep the lactase gene permanently switched on are
common among modern Europeans - but not among their ancestors. In
March 2007, a team of German and British researchers announced that
they went looking for that mutation in the 7000-year-old fossils of
ancient Europeans and came up empty-handed. The researchers managed to
extract the length of DNA corresponding to the lactose tolerance
mutation from eight Neolithic human fossils and one Mesolithic fossil,
but those DNA sequences did not carry the telltale mutation. The
results suggest that as late as 5000 BC most ancient Europeans could
not have digested milk as adults - and that they only later evolved
into milk-drinking societies.
Today, the ability to digest milk as an adult seems like a clear
benefit, but that wasn't always the case. Lactose tolerance is only
advantageous in environments and cultures where humans have access to
domesticated dairy animals. Multiple lines of evidence from human
genetics, cattle genetics, and archaeological records suggest that
Middle Eastern and North Africans populations domesticated cattle
between 7500 and 9000 years ago, and that these animals were later
brought into Europe. In that cow-friendly environment, being able to
drink milk directly (instead of having to process it into lower-
lactose cheese) would have been advantageous, providing additional
sustenance and, during droughts, a source of water. The lactose
tolerance mutation arose randomly (as all mutations do), but once it
arose, it had a distinct advantage in these populations. Natural
selection would have favored individuals carrying the lactose
tolerance mutation, spreading it through ancient European populations
that depended on dairying. Many thousands of years later, we see the
indirect (but delicious) effects of this mutation's success in
European cuisines: oozing French cheeses, Swiss milk chocolate, and
creamy Italian gelatos.
Surprisingly, with respect to dairying, human populations on separate
continents seem to have led parallel lives - or rather, followed
parallel evolutionary trajectories. Recent evidence suggests that
cattle may have been domesticated independently in several places,
including Africa. As African populations began herding cattle, lactose
tolerance became an advantageous trait. The stage was set, in Africa
too, for the spread of a lactose tolerance mutation. In January 2007,
an international team of researchers led by geneticist Sarah Tishkoff
announced that they had uncovered the genetic roots of Africans'
lactose tolerance. Just as in Europe, on this continent, mutations (in
this case, probably three) randomly arose, and these happened to have
the effect of keeping the lactase gene switched on. And just as in
Europe, these mutations were favored by natural selection and quickly
spread through dairy-dependent populations.
While this discovery answers many questions, it also highlights new
mysteries. For example, Tishkoff's team discovered that in the Hadza
population (a group of Tanzanian hunter-gatherers), around 50% are
lactose tolerant - a percentage usually indicative of a dairy-
dependent society. And yet, as far as is known, the Hadza have never
had much to do with cattle or relied on milk in their diets - so what
explains their lactose tolerance? Are they the long lost descendents
of a group of cattle herders? Has the tribe changed its basic mode of
making a living? Or could the lactose tolerance mutation provide some
other yet-to-be-discovered advantage, beyond allowing adults to drink
milk?
Whatever the answers such spin-off questions, research into the
evolutionary origins of lactose tolerance has already clearly
illuminated some fascinating aspects of human evolutionary history.
Perhaps most intriguingly, the convergent evolution of African and
European populations in relation to cattle domestication reveals that
shared aspects of human culture across different ethnic groups affects
our evolution in similar ways. Regardless of skin color or geography -
whether dealing with Stone Age Europeans, Swiss milk maids, Maasai
warriors, or modern hunter-gatherers - evolution plays by the same
rules.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose
Rod Speed
>> animals are not "better off" as a result of coming into existence.
> Whether human and animals are better of is one
> question but both humans and animals have evolved
Yes.
> and this changes justifications for coming into existence.
Nope.
> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their presence.
You dont know that.
> If we got rid of all domesticates something ould be
> missing from our biology and neural firing patterns.
Not clear if you mean could or would there.
> Of course we could evolve away from this coevolutionary dependence
You dont know that even happened.
> but it may take 100s of generations if possible at all
Real evolution takes a lot longer than that.
> since "culture" can interfere with the process now.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> In a broad sense, biological coevolution is "the change of a
> biological object triggered by the change of a related object".
You havent established that that happened with humans and domesticates.
> Coevolution can occur at multiple levels of biology: it can be as
> microscopic as correlated mutations between amino acids in a protein,
Yes.
> or as macroscopic as covarying traits between different species in an environment.
Nope, thats not evolution in a technical sense.
> Each party in a coevolutionary relationship exerts selective
> pressures on the other, thereby affecting each others' evolution.
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim with humans and domesticates.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coevolution
> The rise of agriculture, and domestication of animals, led to stable human settlements.
Yes, but its very far from clear that had any effect on human evolution in a technical sense at all.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
> "For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in
> order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-evolving with."
Thats just plain wrong. It is clear that some species
havent evolved at all over millions of years. Essentially
because they work very well in their particular environment.
> The hypothesis is intended to explain two different phenomena:
> the advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and
> the constant evolutionary arms race between competing species.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed.
> In the first (microevolutionary) version, by making every individual
> an experiment when mixing mother's and father's genes, sexual
> reproduction may allow a species to evolve quickly just to hold
> onto the ecological niche that it already has in the ecosystem.
Many species arent in an ecological niche at all. In spades
with humans who do fine in a vast array of ecologys.
> In the second (macroevolutionary) version,
No such animal.
> the probability of extinction for groups (usually families)
Thats not extinction.
> of organisms is hypothesized to be constant
> within the group and random among groups.
Only by fools.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen
> http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/mr_redqueen.html
> We selected various traits in animals and plants and
> more or less made them grow out in the expreme.
Thats not co evolution, thats deliberate interferene with evolution by un natural selection.
> Our self-produced culture and artifacts have stretched
> language and human nature out of a primate.
Waffle.
> Culture, at whatever stage of development at the time,
> became and environmental pressure and selector.
> We made it, reproduce it, and improve it. Kinda
> like another kind of organism in a romantic sense.
Nothing like, actually.
> www.ecofuture.org/pop/revs/nf_ecohomo.html
Rod Speed
Thats just plain wroing with stuff like sickle cell anemia.
> It hasn't been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
True, but that other claim of yours isnt accurate.
Rod Speed
Yes they have, most obviously with sickle cell anemia.
> The pathogens have changed.
Those have certainly changed too.
Rod Speed
> On Jun 20, 8:14 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications
>>>>> for coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our
>>>>> bodies and brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because
>>>>> of their presence.
>>
>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>> change to have occurred.
>>
>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed. It hasn't
>> been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
>
> Any constant or stable pattern of activity, whether domesticated
> animals or particular sustained environmental patterns, will influence
> the selection of mutations and gene pool variations to the extent that
> bodily and behavioral changes can take place very quickly.
Thats just plain wrong. There isnt a shred of evidence that the domestication
of animals had any real effect on the evolution of humans, or even that bodily
bodily changes happened very quickly either.
> There is a mutation rate and environmental factors influence
> which mutations are beneficial, even in recent human history.
Depends entirely on what you mean by recent.
> The same with domesticated animals.
Nope. All we have with those is the obvious effects of deliberate breeding by humans.
Rod Speed
> On Jun 20, 8:14 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications
>>>>> for coming into existence.
>>
>>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our
>>>>> bodies and brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because
>>>>> of their presence.
>>
>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>> change to have occurred.
>>
>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed. It hasn't
>> been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
> Are you unaware of the more deadly diseases of swine and avian flu due to domesticated animals,
Those are clearly a change in the pathogens, not a change
in the RESISTANCE to the pathogens by humans.
> as well as bubonic plague and AIDS arising
> from animal vectors in close contact with humans,
Again, that isnt the result in a change of the resistance to those diseases by humans.
> or the decimation of native Americans from diseases brought by resistant Europeans?
Again, that isnt the result in a change of the resistance to those diseases by humans.
Its just the result of some humans aquiring immunity to those diseases by exposure
to those diseases and not all of the individuals dying of those diseases. The humans
didnt EVOLVE in the sense that anything was passed on to their descendants in their genes.
You missed the obvious example of real human evolution with sickle
cell anemia, but that has nothing to do with the domestication of animals.
Rod Speed
It also appears in monkeys which arent in close contact with humans.
>> Second, even the flu strains are not in any way proof that *humans*
>> have changed genetically as a result of domestication of animals.
>> Cases of bird flu in Europe several years ago were thought to have
>> been transmitted by wild fowl.
> Apparently you also missed the last part of my post.
Nope, it was wrong too.
Rod Speed
They do recognise particular words tho.
Rod Speed
Thats very arguable. Are you seriously claiming that it isnt possible that
some strains of humans may well have evolved animal handling skills and
that there is no possibility that there was any selection pressure that
allowed those skills to be better respresented in their offspring etc
just because those with the better animal handling skills may well
have had a better chance of survival and the ability to breed say
when so much of warfare was done using animals like horses etc ?
Or even with the animal handling skills involved
with the use of animals in food production etc ?
Anthony Buckland
"Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c...@earthlink.neat> wrote in message
news:VMCdndHmNoASqIPR...@earthlink.com...
> On 6/20/2010 8:19 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>
>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>>
>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>>> coming into existence.
Please state how being a result of evolution (which we
and every other organism on this planet is) "changes"
our justifications for existence. We may or not have a
justification for existing, but "changes"?.
Rod Speed
> On Jun 20, 8:37 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
> wrote:
>> On 6/20/2010 8:24 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 20, 8:14 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs"<fred.c.do...@earthlink.neat>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>>>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications
>>>>>>> for coming into existence.
>>
>>>>>>> bodies and brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently
>>>>>>> because of their presence.
>>
>>>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>>>> change to have occurred.
>>
>>>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>>>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed. It
>>>> hasn't been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
>>
>>> Any constant or stable pattern of activity, whether domesticated
>>> animals or particular sustained environmental patterns, will
>>> influence the selection of mutations and gene pool variations to
>>> the extent that bodily and behavioral changes can take place very
>>> quickly.
>>
>> Disease resistances haven't changed. The pathogens have changed.
>
> Thats only half true. The process works like it did for cockroaches
> and DDT pesticides. Most roaches died but some were resistant, a trait
> that mutated at some point into the roach gene pool, and they
> flourished in the presence of this poison.
>
> an evolutionary tit for tat arms race. Game theory explains how rules
> of evolution are.
>
> Red Queen's race is an evolutionary hypothesis. The term is taken from
> the Red Queen's race in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass. The
> Red Queen said, "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the
> same place." The Red Queen Principle can be stated thus:
>
> "For an evolutionary system, continuing development is needed just in
> order to maintain its fitness relative to the systems it is co-
> evolving with."
>
> advantage of sexual reproduction at the level of individuals, and the
> first (microevolutionary) version, by making every individual an
> experiment when mixing mother's and father's genes, sexual
> reproduction may allow a species to evolve quickly just to hold onto
> the ecological niche that it already has in the ecosystem.
There is no ecological niche with humans. They do very well indeed
in almost every ecology, including some some very unlikely ones.
> In the second (macroevolutionary) version, the probability of
> extinction for groups (usually families) of organisms is hypothesized
> to be constant within the group and random among groups.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen
> http://mcgoodwin.net/pages/otherbooks/mr_redqueen.html
Zerkon
> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>> result of coming into existence.
>>
>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both humans
>> and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for coming
>> into existence.
>>
>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>> presence.
>
> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
> change to have occurred.
Since animals have been domesticated for ehh.. 12,000 years.. the problem
might be in the detectable part.
Zerkon
> Of course we could evolve
> away from this coevolutionary dependence but it may take 100s of
> generations if possible at all since "culture" can interfere with the
> process now.
What culture has not domesticated animals? Is there a commonality among
persons who finds pets repugnant?
John Stafford
wrote:
Interesting! I've never in my short life of 64 years met a person who
did not appreciate their own pets. My way-back ancestors (North American
Natives) would eat their deceased dogs as an act of merging life, death,
and reverence. When my Great Pyrenees passed away I considered the same,
but the damned white part of me and me mate made it not-so. I loved that
dog. He was part of me. I was part of him. That's what happens with
strong identity.
Pets are becoming smarter though us.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist wrote
>> Of course we could evolve away from this coevolutionary
>> dependence but it may take 100s of generations if possible
>> at all since "culture" can interfere with the process now.
> What culture has not domesticated animals?
The pathetic wretches that 'inhabited' tierra del feugo.
> Is there a commonality among persons who finds pets repugnant?
Nope.
Rod Speed
> Zerkon <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> Of course we could evolve away from this coevolutionary
>>> dependence but it may take 100s of generations if possible
>>> at all since "culture" can interfere with the process now.
>> What culture has not domesticated animals? Is there a
>> commonality among persons who finds pets repugnant?
> Interesting! I've never in my short life of 64 years
> met a person who did not appreciate their own pets.
I've met some who have never had any pets at all, deliberately.
> My way-back ancestors (North American Natives) would eat their
> deceased dogs as an act of merging life, death, and reverence.
Funky. Plenty of other natives ate each others for the same reason.
> When my Great Pyrenees passed away I considered the same,
> but the damned white part of me and me mate made it not-so.
> I loved that dog. He was part of me. I was part of him.
> That's what happens with strong identity.
I was never part of my best dog and he wasnt part of me either.
Very different personality to me.
> Pets are becoming smarter though us.
Not clear what you meant there due to the typo, presumably through.
If thats what you meant, its likely true with dogs. Not so true of cats tho.
dh
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> animals are not "better off" as a
>> result of coming into existence.
>
>Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>coming into existence.
Some livestock have lives of positive value and some don't.
It's really very easy, but some people don't appear able to get
even that far with it.
dh
>On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>
>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>>
>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>>> coming into existence.
>>>
>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>>>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>>>> presence.
>>>
>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>> change to have occurred.
>>
>> Disease resistances have.
>
>They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed.
Both have changed Goober, which is why there aren't as many
Europeans, Polynesians and Native Americans etc dying of plagues
as there have been during periods in the past. The plagues culled
out those who could not survive them, evolving the humans in
their local areas.
>It hasn't been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
It's all part of our evolution Goob. Why do you want people
to think it's significant in regards to the supposed evolution of
rights BECAUSE OF society, but the evolution of the society
itself and the humans who compose it you want to see denied
or/and disregarded, Goo?
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>>>
>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications for
>>>>> coming into existence.
>>>>
>>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our bodies and
>>>>> brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because of their
>>>>> presence.
>>>>
>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>> change to have occurred.
>>>
>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed.
>
> Both have changed
You stupid fucking cracker, Fuckwit - you don't know a thing about biology.
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 Goo wrote:
>
>> On 6/20/2010 8:10 AM, M Purcell wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>>> On 6/20/2010 7:58 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> animals are not "better off" as a
>>>>>> result of coming into existence.
>>>>
>>>>> Whether human and animals are better of is one question but both
>>>>> humans and animals have evolved and this changes justifications
>>>>> for coming into existence.
>>>>
>>>>> The moral ties we have with domesticated animals is the our
>>>>> bodies and brains have "changed" or "evolved" diferently because
>>>>> of their presence.
>>>>
>>>> False. It hasn't been long enough for any detectable evolutionary
>>>> change to have occurred.
>>>
>>> Disease resistances have.
>>
>> They haven't. The pathogens, not the humans, have changed.
> Both have changed
Yes.
> which is why there aren't as many Europeans,
> Polynesians and Native Americans etc dying of
> plagues as there have been during periods in the
> past. The plagues culled out those who could not
> survive them, evolving the humans in their local areas.
Nope. If that was true those pathogens would still have
the same virulence in isolated communitys, and they dont.
>> It hasn't been shown to be due to our domestication of animals.
> It's all part of our evolution
Yes, and it would be a fucking sight more surprising if particularly
animal handling skills didnt have an effect on the selection of humans.
Rod Speed
You dont know much yourself.