Are humans still evolving?

[jillery]

The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
discusses the same question here:

<https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>

<http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>

Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
to heart disease.

Coyne mentions a study which describes DNA evidence for human
evolution:

<http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/12/science.aag0776>

<http://tinyurl.com/hbvhlyp>

From the abstract:

*****************************
Detection of recent natural selection is a challenging problem in
population genetics. Here we introduce the Singleton Density Score
(SDS), a method to infer very recent changes in allele frequencies
from contemporary genome sequences. Applied to data from the UK10K
Project, SDS reflects allele frequency changes in the ancestors of
modern Britons during the past ~2,000-3,000 years. We see strong
signals of selection at lactase and the MHC, and in favor of blond
hair and blue eyes. For polygenic adaptation we find that recent
selection for increased height has driven allele frequency shifts
across most of the genome. Moreover, we identify shifts associated
with other complex traits, suggesting that polygenic adaptation has
played a pervasive role in shaping genotypic and phenotypic variation
in modern humans.
******************************
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[John Harshman]

On 10/18/16 10:42 AM, jillery wrote:
> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
> discusses the same question here:
>
> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>

Not quite. Jerry's title is appropriate, but then later on he acts as if
natural selection and evolution are synonyms. It would be a disservice
to Motoo Kimura and Larry Moran to fail to point out that they are not,
and that humans would be evolving even if there were no selection and
even no phenotypic changes. The human population's junk DNA is always
turning over, and that's evolution regardless of anything else.

[Swan Black]

of course we're evolving

everything is

change is a constant, according to buddhism

marc

[jillery]

Ok, so you pointed out that natural selection and evolution are not
synonyms. Too bad you did so by trivializing Coyne's cited examples
of natural selection as examples of evolution. Perhaps you should
mention that to him.

[John Harshman]

I didn't. You are a master at finding offense where there is none.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:54:54 -0700, John Harshman

More correctly, you are a master of accusing me of "finding offense
when there is none", and by so doing deflecting from the fact that you
gratuitously deleted the substance of my post. Or do you claim that
your deletion and lack of comment somehow highlighted Coyne's cited
examples?

You may now pretend my reply is too painful for you to handle.

[John Harshman]

On 10/18/16 6:45 PM, jillery wrote:

> You may now pretend my reply is too painful for you to handle.

Life is too short.

[jillery]

Thanks in part to BS like your replies to me.

[Wolffan]

On 2016 Oct 18, jillery wrote
(in article<95nc0ctqudbeha645...@4ax.com>):

of course humans are still evolving. Evolution is a process, and for a
species the process stops when the species goes extinct. There are species
currently living which show little change from species which were around a
very long time ago, but they do show change. To stop changing is to die.

[Burkhard]

The new of the death of evolution of humans has obviously been exaggerated.

But just as a thought experiment, would it be possible to bring this
about? Short of the Alan model of course which would involve killing us
all with several poisons simultaneously.

Say a "new conservatism" part comes to power with the slogan "if genes
were good enough for my parents, they are good enough for me" and
"conserve the status quo - whatever the costs".

One aspect would be to keep the environment as stable as possible - all
moving into artificial spaces. Just to keep on the safe side, keep
mutagenetic factors as low as possible, and do aggressive pre-birth
screening for mutations. Eliminate sexual selection by allocating mates
through a lottery.

Anything else?

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:20:31 -0400, Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course, your "of course" is rejected by religious fundamentalists,
who instead assume an overly literal interpretation of Genesis, that
Man was created in God's image. Apparently, they believe that God,
along with having a bellybutton, and despite a claim of omnipotence,
is also lactose intolerant.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 16:54:54 -0700, John Harshman

Ok, let me do a reboot quoting someone whom you seem to regard so
highly:

If you were not trying to insult me, you are very ignorant of the
meaning of what you say. I would prefer in this case to attribute your
words to dishonesty and malice rather than stupidity. Which would you
prefer?

[eridanus]

it looks an exaggerated statement.

The question is to define a sensible meaning for the word "evolve".
If by evolve we mean we are adapting to a significative changed of
environment, it bring us back to the question of... has our environment
really changed? In which sense?

Other aspect of the question is that mutations keep occurring at
random, but not because the environment had changed. Mutations occur
because some faulty mechanism is in place. But this faulty mechanism
causing changes cannot be called "evolution" for evolution is some form
of adaptation for a changed environment.

Then for an environment stable for thousands of years, like the present
that is more or less stable since 10,000 years ago, we cannot say we
are evolving. Perhaps, like it occurred 8,200 years ago, that temperature
dropped 2 C degrees in 300 years. During this period, when temperatures
were falling it would had been valid to say "we are adapting to growing hunger, and to live without agriculture" or other similar argument. Later, when
the temperature rose again, like some 4 degrees in 400 years, we would had
been able to say, "we are adapting to a hotter weather". It stopped to
rise around the year 7800 BP. Agriculture began to rise again in importance, as temperatures we rising, and we were eating more cereals. Well, wait
a moment. The change probably was not so good, for the temperature sort of
rose a lot. Perhaps weather was too hot, the oceans were hotter, more
water vapor was in the air, and for some latitudes it would occur that
the summers were too wet, and people living on latitudes of some 50 degrees
north could not store enough dry grass for the winter. And people living
souther, around 40 degrees or so, perhaps could not harvest the wheat for
it rained during the summer and the grain rote and become full of fungus.

Watching carefully the graph of temperatures GISP2 and consulting historical
time lines of events, I got that in the periods of cold, there was famines
in several parts of the world. Like in Rome, or on the other side of the
planet, like in China. The Neolithic culture of China collapsed around
4200 year ago, the mighty Nile become a miserable brook and most of the
Egyptian population died of starvation. There was a widespread drought
in the Middle East, the collapse of Akkadian empire, the Indus valley civilization, and in China the Xia dynasty started to rule for 500 years.
The wikipedia says of this period,
A phase of intense aridity about 4.2 ka BP is recorded across North Africa,[4]
the Middle East,[5] the Red Sea,[6] the Arabian peninsula,[7] the Indian
subcontinent,[3] and midcontinental North America.[8] Glaciers throughout the
mountain ranges of western Canada advanced at about this time.[9] Evidence has
also been found in an Italian cave flowstone,[10] the Kilimanjaro Ice
sheet,[11] and in Andean glacier ice.[12] The onset of the aridification in
Mesopotamia about 4100 BP also coincided with a cooling event in the North
Atlantic, known as Bond event 3.[1][13][14] Despite this, evidence for the 4.2
kyr event in northern Europe is ambiguous, suggesting the origin and impact of
this event is spatially complex.[15]

Then, a while later it came another crisis, a new period of drought, famines
in China around the year 3600 BP. A new dynasty come out. The crisis after
the Santorini explosion, caused an economic depression in Europe and new climatic invaders appeared from the east of Europe. The new immigrants came
with arms of bronze and the wars caused with the invasion caused even more
deaths by hunger. The Hittites appeared as well by the East in Anatolia,
they were also bronze age migrants, that incorporated new people in their
quest for gathering food or herds of animals.

This period do not lasted long. Only some 350 years. The temperatures
began to drop, and this civilizations began to crumble into dust, for lack
of food. This period is called the Bronze Age Collapse by historians. In
China that famines as well and a series of wars, the ended the Shan dynasty.
This was a period of severe drought in the middle east as well.
I watched the graph and saw a little blip down of temp. It had started the
monarchy of Rome with mythic King Romulus. Another blip down on heat
and the Romans kicked down the last king Tarquinius Superbus. Rome
started the a republican regime. Other blip down in this period and the
Romans started the Punic wars. This period was not unique for the Romans,
for it cause famines in China as well, and a series of wars started. Hunger
is a generator of wars. It was in this period, around 2250 years BP that
emperor Qin Shi Huang was able able to conquer all the warrior kingdoms.
I do not pretend that wars only occurred in times of hunger. For hunger was more or less continuous and wars were chronic. But when harvest failed
for a few years in a row, or an excess of population surged up, the need
of fierce wars become more urgent.
The civil wars in Rome near getting close to year 2000 BP, coincided with
the volcano Apoyeque in Nicaragua. This could had helped for the war, or
just an excess of population was the main cause for the civil was. You can rise an army if you lack young people. And people need to feel serious hunger
to join an army and going to a war. For soldiers it is supposed their are
fed almost daily. Then, for so long you are alive as a soldier, there are
serious reasons to believe you are going to eat.
After the period of the emperors started, a series of damn volcanoes exploded. It coincides with a serious drop in temperatures. Temperatures dropped some
nearly 2 degrees Celsius in 120 years.
By the year 165, it occurred the Antonine Plague: (166-180)CE A pandemic,
probably of smallpox or measles, began which would kill some "five million"
people throughout the Roman Empire.
This could be related to the cold and scarcity of food. It is the period of
the Marcomannic wars, 166-180 CE as well. Wars consume a lot of food, and
reduce the population, mostly civil population, that die of starvation.

In some moment, climatic immigrants enter into the Roman Empire. In some
moment, thousands of people closed the Rhine that was frozen thick. People
do not needed to cross by the bridges that were guarded by some troops.

I copy from the Wiki
31 December 406 is the often-repeated date of the crossing of the Rhine by a
mixed group of barbarians that included Vandals, Alans and Suebi. The Rhine-
crossing transgressed one of the Late Roman Empire's most secure limites or
boundaries, and so was a climactic moment in the decline of the Empire. It
initiated a wave of destruction of Roman cities and the collapse of Roman
civic order in northern Gaul. That, in turn, occasioned the rise of three
usurpers in succession in the province of Britannia. Therefore, the crossing of
the Rhine is a marker date in the Migration Period, during which various
Germanic tribes moved westward and southward, out of southern Scandinavia
and northern Germania.
end of cite.
Lets suppose the Germanic people were dreaming to sunbathing, and migrated
to the south to get some well deserved vacations in the south. This is when
the Ilopango in Nicaragua exploded. This was a good period to move south
on vacations while fleeing the hunger of northern latitudes. Well, this period
represents as well the end of the Roman Empire. We can say the volcano
Ilopango hammered the last nail on its coffin.

This period from year 230 to to 560 CE in China was called the period of
the Six Dynasties. They had a lot of fun with wars there. But things got a
lot worse when Rabaul Caldera exploded a little over 530 CE. New wars in
China and famines and the Sui dynasty started a new life that lasted short.
The heavens do not favored this emperor. Around the 630 or so it was
succeeded by the Tang dynasty.
A little while and the Arabs that had suffered some droughts come up to
the north and invaded regions weakened by the wars and the scarcity of food.
The period around the 1300 to 1100 years ago was rather cold.

In Alaska, the retreating glacier Mendenhall presented some rest of thick
tree trunks that was crashed by advanced glaciers, in the years 2250 years
ago, when the Punic wars started. Another advance of the same glacier is dated
2000 years ago, when the Roman empire began to feel a drop in temperature.
Another advance of the glacier started around 1850 years ago, when the
Antonine plague occurred. Another advance of the glacier Mendenhall cutting
thick trees occurred around the 1400 years ago and coincide with he explosion
of Rabaul Caldera and the wars of Sui emperor in China. It must had to be a
period full of hunger, for it was replaced by a new dynasty.

I copy a fragment from wikipedia
-----------
After a series of costly and disastrous military campaigns against Goguryeo,
one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea,[4][5][6] ended in defeat by 614, <the
dynasty disintegrated under a series of popular revolts culminating in the
assassination of Emperor Yang by his ministers in 618>. The dynasty, which
lasted only thirty-seven years, <was undermined by ambitious wars and
construction projects, which overstretched its resources>. Particularly, under
Emperor Yang, heavy taxation and compulsory labor duties would eventually
induce widespread revolts and brief civil war following the fall of the
dynasty.

The Sui dynasty is often compared to the earlier Qin dynasty for unifying China
after prolonged division. Wide-ranging reforms and construction projects were
undertaken to consolidate the newly unified state, with long-lasting influences
beyond their short dynastic reigns.
end/
-----------

The last time Mendenhall glacier in Alaska advanced cutting trees was in
the year 800 CE that coincides with period of lower temperature in the
graphic of GISP2 in Greenland. It shows the lower temperature in the last
8000 years.

My theory says, that populations rise and fall with the climate. People
is slowly adapting to the ups and downs of temperature, and dying as well.
Specially in the cold periods, that provide a lot less of food.

In this sense, we are continuously evolving with the climate. In times of
hunger, a lot of people has to die, not only because of the wars, and hunger
but because the body is not adapted to periods of extreme hunger. The periods
of hunger are the periods of wars and warriors, and the fragment of population
that is more aggressive survive the hunger, but also die. For there is not
food for everybody. But those that survive must had changed a little. They
must have some mutations that go well with hunger and high levels of
adrenaline.

Eri

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 19 de octubre de 2016, 11:25:03 (UTC+1), Wolffan escribió:

Sorry, I corrected the long lines.

it looks an exaggerated your statement.  

The question is to define a sensible meaning for the word "evolve".  

If by evolve we mean we are adapting to a significative change of

must have some mutations that go well with hunger and higher levels of
adrenaline.
 
Eri

[Oxyaena]

Humans are still evolving. There's no question about it, you can clearly
see that over the past 10,000 years humans have developed a tolerance
for lactose, other instances include a higher metabolism in indigenous
Fuegians than other people, explaining why they went naked despite the
incredibly cold climate, or the higher numbers of red blood cells in
Tibetans, allowing them to maximize oxygen efficiency in their
mountainous environment.

While the above post clearly shows that humans are still evolving, and I
mentioned a few extra examples, the recent inter-connecting of
different, previously isolated populations allows more gene flow between
populations, making previously divergent populations more uniform with
their fellow human beings in terms of genetics, however, as a species
humans are still evolving.



--
http://oxyaena.org/

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
> discusses the same question here:
>
> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>
> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
> to heart disease.
>
> Coyne mentions a study which describes DNA evidence for human
> evolution:
>
> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/12/science.aag0776>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/hbvhlyp>
>
> From the abstract:
>
> *****************************
> Detection of recent natural selection is a challenging problem in
> population genetics.

DETECTING the recent actions of the main agent that supposedly produced the complexity seen in biodiversity, past and present, is admittedly "a challenging problem."

How does an un-intelligent entity, with no mind, conceal itself or prevent detection, from hordes of intelligent evolutionary scientists?

Simply ridiculous. Natural selection doesn't exist. You guys are completely deluded; hence "The Evolusion Delusion."

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/18/16 10:42 AM, jillery wrote:
> > The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
> > discusses the same question here:
> >
> > <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>
> Not quite. Jerry's title is appropriate, but then later on he acts as if
> natural selection and evolution are synonyms. It would be a disservice
> to Motoo Kimura and Larry Moran to fail to point out that they are not,
> and that humans would be evolving even if there were no selection and
> even no phenotypic changes.

Then what would be the mechanism that causes human evolution?

> The human population's junk DNA is always
> turning over, and that's evolution regardless of anything else.

DEFINITION:

evolution: "human junk DNA constantly turning over" (John Harshman).

What exactly is the cause and what exactly is the effect?

Ray

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:15:03 PM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/18/16 10:42 AM, jillery wrote:
>>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>>> discusses the same question here:
>>>
>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>
>> Not quite. Jerry's title is appropriate, but then later on he acts as if
>> natural selection and evolution are synonyms. It would be a disservice
>> to Motoo Kimura and Larry Moran to fail to point out that they are not,
>> and that humans would be evolving even if there were no selection and
>> even no phenotypic changes.
>
> Then what would be the mechanism that causes human evolution?

as John said, sometimes selection, sometimes drift, both operating on
mutations.

>
>> The human population's junk DNA is always
>> turning over, and that's evolution regardless of anything else.
>
> DEFINITION:

eh, no? Rather: "One form of"

>
> evolution: "human junk DNA constantly turning over" (John Harshman).
>
> What exactly is the cause and what exactly is the effect?

The cause are mutations plus sampling. The effect is change in allele
frequencies in the population.

>
> Ray
>

[jillery]

The above is an excellent essay, which raises a number of useful and
valid points. My reply below refers to just one of them.

You start your essay as follows:

*************************************

>The question is to define a sensible meaning for the word "evolve".  
>If by evolve we mean we are adapting to a significative change of
>environment, it bring us back to the question of... has our environment
>really changed?  In which sense?

*************************************

As you probably know, your proposed definition of evolution above is
different from the scientific definition, which is "a change in allele
frequencies in a population over time". But let's accept for
argument's sake your definition, and see if it works better.

Your essay focuses on the physical characteristics of the environment,
ex. climate. But the environment also includes the organisms living
in that physical space. It turns out that the interactions of
organisms between species, and competition within species, are
significant sources of evolutionary pressures.

This explains why, even though the Amazon rainforest has existed for
almost 55 million years as a stable and unchanged physical
environment, it also contains greatest diversity of species on the
planet. According to Wikipedia, one in ten known species on Earth
lives in the Amazon rainforest.

That's in part because as one species adapts to a new ecological
niche, it necessarily creates new ecological niches for other
organisms to exploit. For every species of tree, there are dozens of
other species which directly take advantage of the ecological niches
that tree provides. And for every one of those species, there are
other species which take advantage of the ecological niches they
provide. Any changes to a key species necessarily sends evolutionary
ripples throughout the entire ecosystem.

[jillery]

Your post above is just another one of your silly word games. It's no
surprise that your conclusions are gibberish when you won't even read
past the first sentence of the abstract.

[Ray Martinez]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 15:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> >> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
> >> discusses the same question here:
> >>
> >> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
> >>

> >> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document humans

> >> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
> >> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
> >> to heart disease.
> >>
> >> Coyne mentions a study which describes DNA evidence for human
> >> evolution:
> >>
> >> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/12/science.aag0776>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/hbvhlyp>
> >>
> >> From the abstract:
> >>
> >> *****************************
> >> Detection of recent natural selection is a challenging problem in
> >> population genetics.
> >
> >DETECTING the recent actions of the main agent that supposedly produced the complexity seen in biodiversity, past and present, is admittedly "a challenging problem."
> >
> >How does an un-intelligent entity, with no mind, conceal itself or prevent detection, from hordes of intelligent evolutionary scientists?
> >
> >Simply ridiculous. Natural selection doesn't exist. You guys are completely deluded; hence "The Evolusion Delusion."
> >
> >Ray
>
>
> Your post above is just another one of your silly word games. It's no
> surprise that your conclusions are gibberish when you won't even read
> past the first sentence of the abstract.
> --
> This space is intentionally not blank.

Anger caused by inability to refute.


Ray

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 18:09:51 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You finally figure out your problem. Good for you. Now take the next
step and get professional help.

[eridanus]

OK, human groups had adapted to different environment of the planet. With
modern travel we has mixed a lot our genes. Not only this, people moving
from some part of planet to another with different climate is moving their
genes and breed people in different environments. In this sense, some
genetic combinations, by breeding, had to go down, for not being proper to
new environment. The new breeds could had taken some favorable genes from
the new environment. In this sense, we are evolving to adapt to small
changes as people emigrate for a part of the planet to another. Then, if
the planet on the whole had not changed in 100 years, people had moved from
a place of the planet to another. This could had been a great change, even
if most people live protected in houses, not living under the stars.
Even the increase of cities, since medieval times, were a cause for evolution,
for the high density of population in cities, was a frequent cause of
illnesses and epidemics to take root.

In this sense, we are more or less evolving for a reason or other. For
people had moved from an environment to other rather different. The descendants of these people would take a time to acquire or to loose some
alleles that are not best suited for some place.
As for the increase ability to digest lactose, it can be more a case of
some groups to increase and grow who have genes for this, than some standard acquisition by spontaneous mutations.

In general, my idea that evolution is rather erasing bad mutations that come out at random, that creating new ones. I mean new mutations arise, but they
would be mostly non-desired mutations that cause some disadvantage.
Let's consider the case of autism. It can result of some combination of genes,
or can result from some spontaneous mutation in a bad place. It can come
out from both happenstances. I mean, not an unique cause. The same from
congenital blindness. It can be the result of some bad recombination of genes,
or the result of some accidental mutation. In a natural context, this people
would had not much opportunities to breed or to survive.
Survival of the fit is weeding out those bad genes. Then, if natural selection
it is weeding bad genes, is not selecting "the best genes to increase fitness" as Alan was saying, but erasing bad genes. In this sense natural selection is
always working. But in general, my idea is that a population is "adapted" to some environment. It is meant as some statistical expression, for there are always coming out "bad genes" by mutations or recombinations.
I was considering humans, more than general species, including insects,
plants and microorganism.

I think, species are changing because spontaneous mutations. But those
changes are not necessarily adaptations to an environment. What can do
natural selection must be doing is to accept the new mutations or reject
them. It is like giving new mutations or combinations some pass or some
permanent residence. In this sense, I imagine the natural selection does
not select for the fittest but "trims the unfitted". It is an idea that
occurs to me that can be of course wrong.
Thus my opposition to Alan Kleinman is on the concept of some organism
becoming "more fitted" for some environment. I do not like this concept
for some non identified reason. The probability of some mutation of a
gene to "give more fitness" to an organism is more improbably, than the
opposite. Most of the mutations are bound to be weed up, or erased.

But what occurs when the environment changes a little fast? The same;
the new environment "keeps trimming all the unfitted organism, that had
unsuitable genes". Their would remain the genes that existed before and
are still valid for the new situation. But as some genes are often
entangled with others, this can result in some unexpected results. I am
inventing all this as I am writing, for I am a crass ignorant.

In places, like dense rain forests, where many organism are widely
separated from each other, or at least form little groups, to evolve
and to change, is more likely. For it result some effect similar to
a foundation or some cosmic island. The diverse felines, to put an hypothetical example, it had to be some time in the past in a situation
in which some groups got isolated in very small groups. Thus they derived
genetically in their form, because some degree of inbreeding. This gave
way to the different forms of felines, small and big, that evolved in
isolation from the others. This happened, it is my idea, that in times
of great extinctions, where the surviving populations become isolated
in a number of small havens of the planet.
Or course, people with a higher intelligence can think otherwise.

In this sense, we are evolving if the environment changes, or if we emigrate
from some environment to another. In this sense, the blacks living in
higher latitudes out of Africa are evolving. Are also "mixing" with other
populations. All those that migrated, Asians or whatever, are evolving as
well. It can be said "they are genetically adapting" to a new environment.
The more different are those environments, the faster they are evolving.

Then, the concept "we are evolving" is relative. We can be evolving faster
or slower, depending in how great are the differences in the environments.

Think about the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Humans had not found a suitable
way of producing an equivalent amount of energy. It would result a great
change of environment, even if the CO2 would not represent a significant
difference. A great change in the environment, for the machines were providing
a lot of cheap food both in farming and transporting. Suddenly, the
availability of food collapse, wars followed and most of the human population
would die of starvation. This can be considered a great environmental change,
even if the climate of the planet had not changed. (I am assuming the CO2
was not so important) In the opposite case, it would cause a great fall in
average temperature.

Then, considering only the hunger, you would see easily here, a great reason
for "natural selection" to start killing a lot of people. Not only for the
reason of hunger, that it would not be so selective. But for some genetic variables that would make for some individuals to have a greater capacity
to grab food for himself and some of his children.
I was thinking about variables related to the capacity for aggression. How
fast and how hard the individual reacts to make sure he would eat as a probability.

But it seems to be, that some people here, like r-norman, was thinking of
evolving without any concrete reason. Like some random evolving. I am not
sure this could happen inside populations forming huge groups. I cannot
present a rational argument here because I am not familiar with the genetic
literature.

What we can say, watching the racial difference among humans, that this is
a prove "spontaneous evolution". I mean, letting aside the question of skin color, other visible mutations can occur, like the slanted eyes of Asiatics.
I remember a photo I watched of a group of San people of Africa. It seemed
to me, that this group presented a great variety of faces. Some had a faint
look of being like Europeans, other looked more like Asiatics, and other
looked a little like other races of Africa. If this perception I had was
not a delusion, it would mean that those genes we see externally in Asians existed already among the putative emigrants that went out of Africa. But
they amplified and become dominant because of the extreme dispersion of
humans as they went out of Africa. Then, those apparent differences could
not be that new, but a lot older than some 100,000 years.

Anyway, any new genes are possible because they are entangled with the old.
And this is obvious, for all felines have a similar look, and all primates
included humans, had a similar look as well. All the animals that look like
cows, look like cows, and the same for hens, doves, etc.

But the nagging question is the attitude of creationist asking for an easy
explanation on problems as first life or the peculiar case of speciations.

They are use to hear preachers tell this is so, because in the book of Daniel
1:2 said, <And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part
of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house
of his god.>

It is rather difficult to explain evolution changes in detail, because the
changes are numerous and the complexity of the cases great. I never had
read about "how occurs mutations occur". We believe in mutations for this
come out easily as an explanation. Even if we cannot write a detailed
account of how the errors (mutations) occur. We can say, mutations occur
by the will of god. So, insh'allah. This is a good explanation for mutations
evolution.
Sorry for the joke.

eri

[Rolf]

"eridanus" <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1e3c851c-3c99-45b3...@googlegroups.com...

IIRC, the book "The Beak of the Finches" goes into detail about evolutionary
processes constantly modifying the beak of the finches according to the
properties of the currently available food supply?

Evolution never rests, it is active 24/7.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:82608ce8-d970-4bb7...@googlegroups.com...

Please show your evidence that Natural Selection doesn't exist. That is the
only subject thst deserve discussion here. IF NS is right, t.o. is only a
forum for fighting windmills. If NS is wrong, Ray Martinez is the greatest
scientist on the planet, yet not awarded at least one Nobel prize. Maybe
next year?




> Ray
>

[eridanus]

This can be something disputable. If I were a creationist I would argue
that finches of Galapagos have a bi-stable genes for beaks, that could easily
change a way or other. If it changes to be a large beak when it was not needed,
the bird had lost. But when the circumstances are favorable it wins. As they
breed a lot in times of abundance, whatever is the favorable beak in times
of abundance the proper beak would show up and become widespread in a short
while.
I was watching a video about "El niño" and it was talking about this period
of "EL niño" when it rains a lot and islands become full of luxuriant vegetation. I suppose to crack some hard nuts, they need short beaks. Or
perhaps is the reverse.
In any case, it looks like evolution, for it a sort of mutation that is
selected by its consequences. But it is so fast changing, because it must
be an easy mutation. I do not think all mutations are equal. Some are
more probably than other. If the mutation of the beak of finches were the
sort of easy mutations I am thinking, it would explain how it is so easy
observable.

I had consulted the book of Daniel to say this.

Eri

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 02:56:04 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:


Your comments below don't say anything about my previous comments, so
I'll just assume you understand that "the environment" necessarily
includes the organisms which live in it, and evolutionary changes
result at least as much from the interactions between species and
within species as it does from physical effects like climate.

So, instead of leaving quoted text which has nothing to do with the
comments below, I removed them to avoid pointless scrolling.

>OK, human groups had adapted to different environment of the planet. With
>modern travel we has mixed a lot our genes. Not only this, people moving
>from some part of planet to another with different climate is moving their
>genes and breed people in different environments. In this sense, some
>genetic combinations, by breeding, had to go down, for not being proper to
>new environment. The new breeds could had taken some favorable genes from
>the new environment. In this sense, we are evolving to adapt to small
>changes as people emigrate for a part of the planet to another. Then, if
>the planet on the whole had not changed in 100 years, people had moved from
>a place of the planet to another. This could had been a great change, even
>if most people live protected in houses, not living under the stars.
>Even the increase of cities, since medieval times, were a cause for evolution,
>for the high density of population in cities, was a frequent cause of
>illnesses and epidemics to take root.

Your comments above are reasonably correct for most species. But
humans are distinctive from other species, in that they have developed
epigenetic culture to a high degree. With culture, humans don't have
to suffer through generations of maladapted forms to an new
environment until some random mutation provides a beneficial mutation.
Instead, humans change to a beneficial behavior, which can spread
throughout the population in a single generation.

Of course, that doesn't mean humans escape genetic adaptation
altogether, but instead shifts which genetic mutations are
advantageous, ex. mutations which increase creativity, and acceptance
of change, and cohesion within a culture.

>In this sense, we are more or less evolving for a reason or other. For
>people had moved from an environment to other rather different. The descendants of these people would take a time to acquire or to loose some
>alleles that are not best suited for some place.
>As for the increase ability to digest lactose, it can be more a case of
>some groups to increase and grow who have genes for this, than some standard acquisition by spontaneous mutations.

Your comments above suggest a common misunderstanding, with echoes of
Lamarckism, that mutations happen depending on organisms' need for
them. The fact is that ALL mutations are spontaneous, in the sense
their phenotypic effects have only a coincidental association with any
evolutionary demands.

Personally, I would love it if humans could fly like a bird, or run as
fast as a cheetah, or generate hundreds of volts like an eel, but such
speculation is Creationist woo, not science.

In the specific case of lactose tolerance, the are specific mutations
which happen spontaneously which disables the mechanism that disables
the production of lactase. For most of human history, lactose was not
available to sexually active humans, so those mutations were at best
useless. Or possibly some side-effect of those mutations, having
nothing to do with lactose tolerance, would have a detrimental effect.
Either way, those mutations would get lost in the population.

Of course, there are lots of good reasons for raising cattle besides
harvesting milk. So human populations took advantage of that culture
even though they were lactose intolerant.

But once a human culture discovers pastoral agriculture, that changes
which mutations are advantageous. And when the right mutations
spontaneously happen in that culture, that individual and his
descendants have a tremendous advantage over his lactose-intolerant
neighbors.

>In general, my idea that evolution is rather erasing bad mutations that come out at random, that creating new ones. I mean new mutations arise, but they
>would be mostly non-desired mutations that cause some disadvantage.
>Let's consider the case of autism. It can result of some combination of genes,
>or can result from some spontaneous mutation in a bad place. It can come
>out from both happenstances. I mean, not an unique cause. The same from
>congenital blindness. It can be the result of some bad recombination of genes,
>or the result of some accidental mutation. In a natural context, this people
>would had not much opportunities to breed or to survive.
>Survival of the fit is weeding out those bad genes. Then, if natural selection
>it is weeding bad genes, is not selecting "the best genes to increase fitness" as Alan was saying, but erasing bad genes. In this sense natural selection is
>always working. But in general, my idea is that a population is "adapted" to some environment. It is meant as some statistical expression, for there are always coming out "bad genes" by mutations or recombinations.
>I was considering humans, more than general species, including insects,
>plants and microorganism.

Your comments above suggest another common misunderstanding, that most
mutations are disadvantageous. In fact, most mutations are completely
neutral. Either they have no effect whatsoever on the phenotype, or
what effects they have make no difference to the organism's chances of
reproducing.

>I think, species are changing because spontaneous mutations. But those
>changes are not necessarily adaptations to an environment. What can do
>natural selection must be doing is to accept the new mutations or reject
>them. It is like giving new mutations or combinations some pass or some
>permanent residence. In this sense, I imagine the natural selection does
>not select for the fittest but "trims the unfitted". It is an idea that
>occurs to me that can be of course wrong.

You comments above raise an important point, that natural selection
provides two important functions. One is as you describe above, to
eliminate detrimental genes from the population. The other is to
amplify beneficial genes in the population. So, even though natural
selection can't create "new information" (that's what random mutation
does), the combined effect of these functions is what gives natural
selection such a powerful evolutionary effect.

>Thus my opposition to Alan Kleinman is on the concept of some organism
>becoming "more fitted" for some environment. I do not like this concept
>for some non identified reason. The probability of some mutation of a
>gene to "give more fitness" to an organism is more improbably, than the
>opposite. Most of the mutations are bound to be weed up, or erased.
>
>But what occurs when the environment changes a little fast? The same;
>the new environment "keeps trimming all the unfitted organism, that had
>unsuitable genes". Their would remain the genes that existed before and
>are still valid for the new situation. But as some genes are often
>entangled with others, this can result in some unexpected results. I am
>inventing all this as I am writing, for I am a crass ignorant.

Your comments above make some valid points. It's important to keep in
mind that the results are different for humans because of their
culture. Cultural change is so much faster than genetic change. For
example, the United States goes through culture changes every four
years.

>In places, like dense rain forests, where many organism are widely
>separated from each other, or at least form little groups, to evolve
>and to change, is more likely. For it result some effect similar to
>a foundation or some cosmic island. The diverse felines, to put an hypothetical example, it had to be some time in the past in a situation
>in which some groups got isolated in very small groups. Thus they derived
>genetically in their form, because some degree of inbreeding. This gave
>way to the different forms of felines, small and big, that evolved in
>isolation from the others. This happened, it is my idea, that in times
>of great extinctions, where the surviving populations become isolated
>in a number of small havens of the planet.
>Or course, people with a higher intelligence can think otherwise.

You comments above describe what is called the Founder Effect, which
has significant implications to Evolutionary theory and mechanisms for
speciation. Short version, almost any subset of a population is going
to have a different allele distribution than the population it came
from. Some alleles are going to over-represented, other alleles are
going to be missing altogether. So small isolated populations will
almost necessarily evolve different characteristics than the larger
population they came from.

>In this sense, we are evolving if the environment changes, or if we emigrate
>from some environment to another. In this sense, the blacks living in
>higher latitudes out of Africa are evolving. Are also "mixing" with other
>populations. All those that migrated, Asians or whatever, are evolving as
>well. It can be said "they are genetically adapting" to a new environment.
>The more different are those environments, the faster they are evolving.
>
>Then, the concept "we are evolving" is relative. We can be evolving faster
>or slower, depending in how great are the differences in the environments.
>
>Think about the exhaustion of fossil fuels. Humans had not found a suitable
>way of producing an equivalent amount of energy. It would result a great
>change of environment, even if the CO2 would not represent a significant
>difference. A great change in the environment, for the machines were providing
>a lot of cheap food both in farming and transporting. Suddenly, the
>availability of food collapse, wars followed and most of the human population
>would die of starvation. This can be considered a great environmental change,
>even if the climate of the planet had not changed. (I am assuming the CO2
>was not so important) In the opposite case, it would cause a great fall in
>average temperature.
>
>Then, considering only the hunger, you would see easily here, a great reason
>for "natural selection" to start killing a lot of people. Not only for the
>reason of hunger, that it would not be so selective. But for some genetic variables that would make for some individuals to have a greater capacity
>to grab food for himself and some of his children.
>I was thinking about variables related to the capacity for aggression. How
>fast and how hard the individual reacts to make sure he would eat as a probability.

Actually, limited food supply is probably the most important cause of
evolutionary change, perhaps more important than all the other causes
combined. It is the one cause on which Malthus based his conclusions,
which is what inspired Darwin to recognize competition and
differential survival. Different phenotypes necessarily react to lack
of food differently. Smaller and passive individuals will survive
lack of food longer than larger and aggressive individuals.
Generalists who able to use new sources of food will survive better
than specialists who stick to only a few sources.

>But it seems to be, that some people here, like r-norman, was thinking of
>evolving without any concrete reason. Like some random evolving. I am not
>sure this could happen inside populations forming huge groups. I cannot
>present a rational argument here because I am not familiar with the genetic
>literature.
>
>What we can say, watching the racial difference among humans, that this is
>a prove "spontaneous evolution". I mean, letting aside the question of skin color, other visible mutations can occur, like the slanted eyes of Asiatics.
>I remember a photo I watched of a group of San people of Africa. It seemed
>to me, that this group presented a great variety of faces. Some had a faint
>look of being like Europeans, other looked more like Asiatics, and other
>looked a little like other races of Africa. If this perception I had was
>not a delusion, it would mean that those genes we see externally in Asians existed already among the putative emigrants that went out of Africa. But
>they amplified and become dominant because of the extreme dispersion of
>humans as they went out of Africa. Then, those apparent differences could
>not be that new, but a lot older than some 100,000 years.

Your comments above touch on an important concept. AIUI the San
people are a remnant population of the original humans which last left
Africa. So while the San themselves became isolated by more recent
migrations within Africa, their restless relatives populated the rest
of the world.

>Anyway, any new genes are possible because they are entangled with the old.
>And this is obvious, for all felines have a similar look, and all primates
>included humans, had a similar look as well. All the animals that look like
>cows, look like cows, and the same for hens, doves, etc.
>
>But the nagging question is the attitude of creationist asking for an easy
>explanation on problems as first life or the peculiar case of speciations.
>
>They are use to hear preachers tell this is so, because in the book of Daniel
>1:2 said, <And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part
>of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
>to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house
>of his god.>
>
>It is rather difficult to explain evolution changes in detail, because the
>changes are numerous and the complexity of the cases great. I never had
>read about "how occurs mutations occur". We believe in mutations for this
>come out easily as an explanation. Even if we cannot write a detailed
>account of how the errors (mutations) occur. We can say, mutations occur
>by the will of god. So, insh'allah. This is a good explanation for mutations
>evolution.
>Sorry for the joke.
>
>eri

Actually, your comments above touch on a serious point. IMO one
doesn't have to understand how mutations happen in order to understand
their consequences to evolution. Darwin didn't know a thing about
chromosomes either, but he still managed to understand how mutation
and natural selection necessarily means evolution and speciation. So
if the complexities of molecular biology scare you, set that aside,
assume mutations happen, and work out the consequences of that one
assumption.

[eridanus]

El viernes, 21 de octubre de 2016, 14:25:03 (UTC+1), jillery escribió:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 02:56:04 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Your comments below don't say anything about my previous comments, so
> I'll just assume you understand that "the environment" necessarily
> includes the organisms which live in it, and evolutionary changes
> result at least as much from the interactions between species and
> within species as it does from physical effects like climate.

I had not reasons to dispute your arguments. Except perhaps your statement
that Amazon had remained as it is for 50 million years. Of course, I cannot
buy this argument. 50 million years are to many years. Even if you tell
me that Amazon had remained as it is now for the past 50,000 years is a lot
to swallow. But I am not going to dispute all the things I read.

I have not any doubt about evolution of organism. What relations can we
consider between humans and the rest of organism is a too complex question
to ponder.

>
> So, instead of leaving quoted text which has nothing to do with the
> comments below, I removed them to avoid pointless scrolling.
>
>
> >OK, human groups had adapted to different environment of the planet. With
> >modern travel we has mixed a lot our genes. Not only this, people moving
> >from some part of planet to another with different climate is moving their
> >genes and breed people in different environments. In this sense, some
> >genetic combinations, by breeding, had to go down, for not being proper to
> >new environment. The new breeds could had taken some favorable genes from
> >the new environment. In this sense, we are evolving to adapt to small
> >changes as people emigrate for a part of the planet to another. Then, if
> >the planet on the whole had not changed in 100 years, people had moved from
> >a place of the planet to another. This could had been a great change, even
> >if most people live protected in houses, not living under the stars.
> >Even the increase of cities, since medieval times, were a cause for evolution,
> >for the high density of population in cities, was a frequent cause of
> >illnesses and epidemics to take root.
>
>
> Your comments above are reasonably correct for most species. But
> humans are distinctive from other species, in that they have developed
> epigenetic culture to a high degree. With culture, humans don't have
> to suffer through generations of maladapted forms to an new
> environment until some random mutation provides a beneficial mutation.
> Instead, humans change to a beneficial behavior, which can spread
> throughout the population in a single generation.

Of course we are different for the time being. But perhaps we are not
really so almighty to be indifferent to changes in climate. Specially
if the question is a serious fall in temperature, that was my main argument.

> Of course, that doesn't mean humans escape genetic adaptation
> altogether, but instead shifts which genetic mutations are
> advantageous, ex. mutations which increase creativity, and acceptance
> of change, and cohesion within a culture.

You are speaking about creativity as a very powerful tool. But if I remember
well, you were also speaking about space travel. I do not believe so much
in human technology, as this argument of Elon Musk speaking of sending
humans to Mars. I do not believe this would be ever possible. I am very pessimistic about future human technology.

> >In this sense, we are more or less evolving for a reason or other. For
> >people had moved from an environment to other rather different. The descendants of these people would take a time to acquire or to loose some
> >alleles that are not best suited for some place.
> >As for the increase ability to digest lactose, it can be more a case of
> >some groups to increase and grow who have genes for this, than some standard acquisition by spontaneous mutations.
>
>
> Your comments above suggest a common misunderstanding, with echoes of
> Lamarckism, that mutations happen depending on organisms' need for
> them. The fact is that ALL mutations are spontaneous, in the sense
> their phenotypic effects have only a coincidental association with any
> evolutionary demands.

I was not talking of Lamarckism. I am not Lamarckist. I was talking about
some "easy mutation" that can occur often, for whatever reason not
yet determined. If the mutation about the form of the beak comes in handy,
the bird profits and breeds a lot of babies because is a season of plenty.
Like occurs during "el Niño".
Just during the hard season of drought, all the birds with some sort of
unsuitable beak would had perished after a time if it were not for the
frequent mutation. The next hatch of eggs would contain some babies with
the correct beak. Between the wet season and the dry one, must exist a
middle of the road season, not very wet, not very dry.
The birds that presented beak favorable for the dry season would thrive.
The change in the form of beaks are spontaneous because the alleles related
to the form of the beak are unstable. The system causes some loses, but
there are obvious rewards.

I had not read this theory anywhere. But surely someone had written already about this. I have just an ordinary intelligence. This idea came to my brain
one day that I read some comments about the beaks of the finches.

The period of "el Niño" is not predictable, and do not last very long; just
a 12 or 18 months. Then, it takes ten or 12 years, perhaps less, before
other episode of "El Niño" occurs.

The typical mutation it is commonly said to be random. I cannot dispute this.
But those birds had a mutation in the locus that control the form of their
beaks for that to occur so often. The birds had an unstable mutation that control the form of their beaks. This is a rational explanation. A rare
mutation could take many centuries to occur. But long ago, I thought that
not all mutations had the same probability to occur. Some mutations occur
easily. Like a baby being born blind, or deaf, or autistic, or with a Down
syndrome. If these mutations were the typical rare mutations, they would
occur only after a century or so.

> Personally, I would love it if humans could fly like a bird, or run as
> fast as a cheetah, or generate hundreds of volts like an eel, but such
> speculation is Creationist woo, not science.

Of course. This is not possible. The mutations must be small changes, that
had to be compatible with actual animal. The stupid error of the creationist
is to say we are pretending that evolution can change a fish into turtle, or into a cow or a bird.

> In the specific case of lactose tolerance, the are specific mutations
> which happen spontaneously which disables the mechanism that disables
> the production of lactase. For most of human history, lactose was not
> available to sexually active humans, so those mutations were at best
> useless. Or possibly some side-effect of those mutations, having
> nothing to do with lactose tolerance, would have a detrimental effect.

this is one of the easiest questions to ponder. In lactose tolerance
is a mutation that could not root among populations herding animals that
produce milk. In times of crisis, like during a great period of cold,
the productivity of the land drops and a poor woman would force their
children to drink milk. I met an old man that was a goat herder when
young. I invited him to have a glass of wine often, and he loved to talk.
That is why I heard his story about his mother forcing him to drink milk.
He said, he do not like to drink milk, because it gave him stomach aches.
The man was short, much less tall than me and I am short. Just consider
a poor population herding animals that they do not own. The land owner
had those poor herders on the verge of starvation. They rarely can eat
meat, or other nutritive foods. So, if they can rob a little milk, and
the children can tolerate the lactose it is a great hit. Thus, as times
passes the mutation that permit to digest the lactose could be spread out
among the population. But among the rich landowners the mutation would
not be determinant, for they were eating rather well. Of course, any
rich man or aristocrat could had acquired this mutation by marrying a
common female of the poor class.

> Either way, those mutations would get lost in the population.
>
> Of course, there are lots of good reasons for raising cattle besides
> harvesting milk. So human populations took advantage of that culture
> even though they were lactose intolerant.

Or course, herding must be a lot older than the lactose tolerance. People
tending domestic animals, could eat meat. But when societies evolved in
two opposing classes, the landowners and the shit poor, things changed a bit.

> But once a human culture discovers pastoral agriculture, that changes
> which mutations are advantageous. And when the right mutations
> spontaneously happen in that culture, that individual and his
> descendants have a tremendous advantage over his lactose-intolerant
> neighbors.

Some populations that herd yaks and horses were drinking milk, but they
do it after fermenting. In this case, they lose all the energy of the
lactose that was consumed by the lactic ferments.

> >In general, my idea that evolution is rather erasing bad mutations that come out at random, that creating new ones. I mean new mutations arise, but they
> >would be mostly non-desired mutations that cause some disadvantage.
> >Let's consider the case of autism. It can result of some combination of genes,
> >or can result from some spontaneous mutation in a bad place. It can come
> >out from both happenstances. I mean, not an unique cause. The same from
> >congenital blindness. It can be the result of some bad recombination of genes,
> >or the result of some accidental mutation. In a natural context, this people
> >would had not much opportunities to breed or to survive.
> >Survival of the fit is weeding out those bad genes. Then, if natural selection
> >it is weeding bad genes, is not selecting "the best genes to increase fitness" as Alan was saying, but erasing bad genes. In this sense natural selection is
> >always working. But in general, my idea is that a population is "adapted" to some environment. It is meant as some statistical expression, for there are always coming out "bad genes" by mutations or recombinations.
> >I was considering humans, more than general species, including insects,
> >plants and microorganism.
>
>
> Your comments above suggest another common misunderstanding, that most
> mutations are disadvantageous. In fact, most mutations are completely
> neutral. Either they have no effect whatsoever on the phenotype, or
> what effects they have make no difference to the organism's chances of
> reproducing.

Well, I do not see the motive to say "it is a common misunderstanding".
Mutations are random. Thus if some mutations are neutral are not worthy
to be commented. But if some mutations have negative implications it is
a good thing to know what they are, the best possible. Just in case we
could do something, or for the sake of knowing.
All the genetic anomalies we know of are negative. They are not lethal,
most of them, but are negative. Do not provide any survival advantage.
Then, this aspect of the genetic mutations are worthy to be commented.

Then, the good mutations. Those that would improve our fitness and survival
capability must be necessarily rare. In case contrary, that good mutations
would had been as easy or frequent that would make true the fantasy of
"X-MEN" like in the science fiction novel. It does not make any sense.

I think my idea is very reasonable. Most of our mutations are undesirable
genetic noise. And the environment is digging out these weeds.

I am sure any scientist had said presented this argument. I cannot
present you the data, for I do not read genetic literature.

> >I think, species are changing because spontaneous mutations. But those
> >changes are not necessarily adaptations to an environment. What can do
> >natural selection must be doing is to accept the new mutations or reject
> >them. It is like giving new mutations or combinations some pass or some
> >permanent residence. In this sense, I imagine the natural selection does
> >not select for the fittest but "trims the unfitted". It is an idea that
> >occurs to me that can be of course wrong.
>
>
> You comments above raise an important point, that natural selection
> provides two important functions. One is as you describe above, to
> eliminate detrimental genes from the population. The other is to
> amplify beneficial genes in the population. So, even though natural
> selection can't create "new information" (that's what random mutation
> does), the combined effect of these functions is what gives natural
> selection such a powerful evolutionary effect.

I could not had said this with so much elegance. But English is not my
mother tongue. You have the gift of a great intelligence.

> >Thus my opposition to Alan Kleinman is on the concept of some organism
> >becoming "more fitted" for some environment. I do not like this concept
> >for some non identified reason. The probability of some mutation of a
> >gene to "give more fitness" to an organism is more improbably, than the
> >opposite. Most of the mutations are bound to be weed up, or erased.
> >
> >But what occurs when the environment changes a little fast? The same;
> >the new environment "keeps trimming all the unfitted organism, that had
> >unsuitable genes". Their would remain the genes that existed before and
> >are still valid for the new situation. But as some genes are often
> >entangled with others, this can result in some unexpected results. I am
> >inventing all this as I am writing, for I am a crass ignorant.
>
>
> Your comments above make some valid points. It's important to keep in
> mind that the results are different for humans because of their
> culture. Cultural change is so much faster than genetic change. For
> example, the United States goes through culture changes every four
> years.

I cannot complain about our intelligence and technical capabilities.
But I am a little skeptical about our technological powers to confront
some situations, like the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or the next glacial
age.

eri

[Ray Martinez]

The Nobel jury is comprised of Evolutionists exclusively. Creationists are not eligible to win.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I'm relieved to be considered mentally ill by a person who thinks the wondrous complexity found in biodivesity was produced accidentally (= chance mutations).

Ray

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:31:23 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I cannot complain about our intelligence and technical capabilities.
>But I am a little skeptical about our technological powers to confront
>some situations, like the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or the next glacial
>age.

Humans lived without benefit of fossil fuels for millions of years. Of
course going without them once again will force major behavioral
changes, at the very least. But I would be very surprised if all
humans just gave up and died just because life became suddenly more
difficult.

[jillery]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:34:21 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

The "wondrous complexity found in biodiversity" is the product of
accident in exactly the same way as the miracle of your own birth.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/20/2016 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>> discusses the same question here:
>>
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>
>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>> to heart disease.
>>
>> Coyne mentions a study which describes DNA evidence for human
>> evolution:
>>
>> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/12/science.aag0776>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/hbvhlyp>
>>
>> From the abstract:
>>
>> *****************************
>> Detection of recent natural selection is a challenging problem in
>> population genetics.
>
> DETECTING the recent actions of the main agent that supposedly produced the complexity seen in biodiversity, past and present, is admittedly "a challenging problem."

Wow, what a way to misrepresent actual science. You see, we've detected
evolution occurring recently many times, such as the evolution of a new
species of grass in the UK, or the speciation of five different mice
species over a period of two-and-a-half centuries on one of the Faroe
Islands.

>
> How does an un-intelligent entity, with no mind, conceal itself or prevent detection, from hordes of intelligent evolutionary scientists?

One answer: "it doesn't". We've known humans are still evolving for a
long time, just look at the evolution of HIV resistance in some African
populations, jackass.

>
> Simply ridiculous. Natural selection doesn't exist. You guys are completely deluded; hence "The Evolusion Delusion."
>
> Ray
>

Really? Say that to the peppered moths, you ignorant buffoon.

--
http://oxyaena.org/

[Oxyaena]

Anger caused by scientific illiteracy and mental retardation.

--
http://oxyaena.org/

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:fdf29011-d27a-4e74...@googlegroups.com...

What injustice, being excluded from the glory of a Nobel by default!

>

[eridanus]

No doubt. How many billion humans were living without fossil fuels?
Behavioral changes? that's right. The most common behavioral changes
happen when scarcities and famines occur, they are called wars. In the
past, when a couple of grades the temperature dropped empires collapsed,
and kingdoms, and the population shrank to minimal levels. You can see
a correlation between the failure of the monsoon in China and civil
wars lasting a decade or more. During this period the Chinese population
shrank and a new dynasty come out. So much for behavioral changes.

Eri

[eridanus]

the brain of Ray is inmutabilist
eri

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 02:17:08 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El sábado, 22 de octubre de 2016, 0:25:02 (UTC+1), jillery escribió:
>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:31:23 -0700 (PDT), eridanus
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I cannot complain about our intelligence and technical capabilities.
>> >But I am a little skeptical about our technological powers to confront
>> >some situations, like the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or the next glacial
>> >age.
>>
>>
>> Humans lived without benefit of fossil fuels for millions of years. Of
>> course going without them once again will force major behavioral
>> changes, at the very least. But I would be very surprised if all
>> humans just gave up and died just because life became suddenly more
>> difficult.
>
>No doubt. How many billion humans were living without fossil fuels?
>Behavioral changes? that's right. The most common behavioral changes
>happen when scarcities and famines occur, they are called wars. In the
>past, when a couple of grades the temperature dropped empires collapsed,
>and kingdoms, and the population shrank to minimal levels. You can see
>a correlation between the failure of the monsoon in China and civil
>wars lasting a decade or more. During this period the Chinese population
>shrank and a new dynasty come out. So much for behavioral changes.

Your words suggest to me you don't like my words. OTOH your reply
implies you like my reply, per your recent self-serving comment to
rockhead. Since it's almost certain you would claim to not like any
question I post to you, I simply note the paradox created in your
imagination.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hvgu0c1c9rjbbl5bt...@4ax.com...

Your paranoia on drugs?
>

[J. J. Lodder]

Rolf <rolf.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fdf29011-d27a-4e74...@googlegroups.com...
> > On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 4:40:02 AM UTC-7, Rolf wrote:

[snip]

> >> Please show your evidence that Natural Selection doesn't exist. That is
> >> the
> >> only subject thst deserve discussion here. IF NS is right, t.o. is only a
> >> forum for fighting windmills. If NS is wrong, Ray Martinez is the
> >> greatest
> >> scientist on the planet, yet not awarded at least one Nobel prize. Maybe
> >> next year?
> >
> > The Nobel jury is comprised of Evolutionists exclusively. Creationists are
> > not eligible to win.
> >
> > Ray
>
> What injustice, being excluded from the glory of a Nobel by default!

Well, Nobel insisted in his will that the recipient
should have done something of value for humanity.

He no doubt meant positive value,

Jan

[Glenn]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message news:1mvo8r1.1e3zbzy7whccqN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...

No doubt,

[eridanus]

you are giving too much importance to what I said.
Your posts sometimes I like them, sometimes not. But most often I do
not reply to the arguments of your posts that I do not like.

Then, I agree that humans react to crisis using some intelligence. But most
often than not those reactions are wars. They expend a lot of intelligence
in wars. I am not sure if you agree with this argument or not. But I do
could not care either, for there is nothing I can do to change the future.

If you think humans can do much better than start WWIII because the fossil
fuels are getting exhausted it would be an interesting change.

eri

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 05:06:42 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

You looking for more? GIYF

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:34:00 -0700 (PDT), eridanus

>you are giving too much importance to what I said.

To the contrary, I gave what you said all the attention it deserved,
and filed it accordingly.

>Your posts sometimes I like them, sometimes not. But most often I do
>not reply to the arguments of your posts that I do not like.
>
>Then, I agree that humans react to crisis using some intelligence. But most
>often than not those reactions are wars. They expend a lot of intelligence
>in wars. I am not sure if you agree with this argument or not. But I do
>could not care either, for there is nothing I can do to change the future.
>
>If you think humans can do much better than start WWIII because the fossil
>fuels are getting exhausted it would be an interesting change.

And how 'bout them Mets.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:10qu0ctr4absc8uc1...@4ax.com...

Oh no.

[eridanus]

what are the Mets?
eri

[Öö Tiib]

New York Mets is name of a baseball team. The question is meant as
a parody on too abrupt change of discussion subject.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 23:18:13 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

Or more precisely, as an obvious non sequitur as a response
to an obvious non sequitur.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:69032c74-3e62-4006...@googlegroups.com...

1. You always are relieved by this or that, isn't all that relief becoming
too much for you?
2. Why don't you ever make relevant comments/replies?



> Ray
>

[Jonathan]

On 10/20/2016 6:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 10:45:02 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>> discusses the same question here:
>>
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>
>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human

>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>> to heart disease.
>>
>> Coyne mentions a study which describes DNA evidence for human
>> evolution:
>>
>> <http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/10/12/science.aag0776>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/hbvhlyp>
>>
>> From the abstract:
>>
>> *****************************
>> Detection of recent natural selection is a challenging problem in
>> population genetics.
>
> DETECTING the recent actions of the main agent that supposedly produced the complexity seen in biodiversity, past and present, is admittedly "a challenging problem."
>
> How does an un-intelligent entity, with no mind, conceal itself or prevent detection, from hordes of intelligent evolutionary scientists?
>
> Simply ridiculous. Natural selection doesn't exist. You guys are completely deluded; hence "The Evolusion Delusion."
>
> Ray
>

Note to Moderator, this guy is really stupid, please
ban him from humanity.



s

[Jonathan]

On 10/18/2016 1:42 PM, jillery wrote:
> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
> discusses the same question here:
>
> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>
> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
> to heart disease.
>

How about emotions, opinions, knowledge or
world views?

The mind is a CAS too, and evolves every
single day, that should be obvious.

One can't separate the mind and body from
each other anymore than one can separate the
autonomous agent from it's environment
without destroying the evolutionary process.

Without killing it.

You've asked a really silly question.


AN 534 Advanced Topics in Human Behavioral Evolution

Prereq: Consent of instructor. Topics in the behavioral
evolution of Homo sapiens including social and sexual
behavior, tool traditions, diet and hunting, language
and intelligence, and locomotion. This course considers
(inferred) behavioral transitions that characterized
the origin of our genus and our species. NS 4 cr.
http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/courses/all-courses/500-level/



http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n2/full/nrn3403.html



s

[rsNorman]

Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Pretty much everyone here, apparently with the exception of you,
recognizes the difference between biological evolution and
cultural evolution.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[rsNorman]

Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Note to jonathan. On topic stupidity is quite appropriate here.
Indeed it is quite common.
On the other hand, off topic whatever can be banned when it
becomes egregious.

Another note to jonathan. The topic here is NOT "complex
adaptive systems."

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:35:47 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/18/2016 1:42 PM, jillery wrote:
>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>> discusses the same question here:
>>
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>
>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>> to heart disease.
>>
>
>
>
>How about emotions, opinions, knowledge or
>world views?
>
>The mind is a CAS too, and evolves every
>single day, that should be obvious.
>
>One can't separate the mind and body from
>each other anymore than one can separate the
>autonomous agent from it's environment
>without destroying the evolutionary process.
>
>Without killing it.
>
>You've asked a really silly question.

Yeah, I know, you ignore everybody who thinks humans were created in
God's image. Thanks for sharing.

>AN 534 Advanced Topics in Human Behavioral Evolution
>
>Prereq: Consent of instructor. Topics in the behavioral
>evolution of Homo sapiens including social and sexual
>behavior, tool traditions, diet and hunting, language
>and intelligence, and locomotion. This course considers
>(inferred) behavioral transitions that characterized
>the origin of our genus and our species. NS 4 cr.
>http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/courses/all-courses/500-level/
>
>
>
>http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n2/full/nrn3403.html
>
>
>
>s
>
>

[jonathan]

Please explain the difference if
you can. They are both examples of
a CAS, so they are both evolving
systems, coevolving just as life
coevolves with the environment.

Why should anyone listen to you?

You've shown you can't even define
the term complexity wrt complexity
science, and that's like someone
claiming to know about calculus
not knowing what an integral is.

Pretty sad.

Your knowledge of evolution is
sub 101 as a result.

It's an /open book/ quiz and you
still flunk...hands down.

DEFINE COMPLEXITY Mr complexity
science, or stop embarrassing
yourself.

You're a poseur that can't think
for yourself, your knowledge
of nature is that of an 'artist'
that can only paint by numbers.

s

[jonathan]

On 11/6/2016 7:22 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:35:47 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2016 1:42 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>>> discusses the same question here:
>>>
>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>>
>>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
>>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>>> to heart disease.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How about emotions, opinions, knowledge or
>> world views?
>>
>> The mind is a CAS too, and evolves every
>> single day, that should be obvious.
>>
>> One can't separate the mind and body from
>> each other anymore than one can separate the
>> autonomous agent from it's environment
>> without destroying the evolutionary process.
>>
>> Without killing it.
>>
>> You've asked a really silly question.
>
>
> Yeah, I know, you ignore everybody who thinks humans were created in
> God's image. Thanks for sharing.
>

You're reply is as empty as your question.

I challenge you to answer the same question
as I did Norman. Define complexity wrt complexity
science. If you can't you haven't the
/first clue/ how reality, nature or
evolution works.

Please show the ng you're not another
clueless Ray Martinez that utters
uninformed opinions.

It's a open book quiz, and you can't
pass? Talk about pitiful.

[rsNorman]

jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

I don't why I do this but my plans for today have fallen through
and I am bored. So here goes.

You are watching a building or a bridge or an airplane wing
shaking violently and ask somebody "shouldn't we do something
before it breaks and kills a lot of people?" The answer is, "no,
it is just another example of simple harmonic motion, just like
inside an organ pipe or watching a kid on a swing at the park.
Complex dynamic systems like this do this kind of behavior so
let's just watch how it plays out."

You are on rounds at the hospital and your group of interns and
residents walks into a room where a patient is having a heart
attack. You ask, "shouldn't we do something before this person
dies?" The answer is "no, it is just ventricular fibrillation, a
routine example of chaos just like what happens in a gas or other
heat sink or in a riot or war. Complex dynamicsystems like this
do this kind of behavior so let's just watch how it plays out.
"

Yelling "complex dynamic system" or "complexity" may be
interesting at some times to some people but it really doesn't
explain anything. Different complex dynamic systems have
entirely different mechanisms at work within but all may share
some mathematical features. The similarities lie completely in
the mathematics. The differences are crucial to understanding
the behavior and, possibly, being able to do something to
encourage or prevent it.

Somehow political scientists understand that international strife
is related to distribution of resources (silk, spice, gold,
petroleum...) and historical events about who conquered whom
(Romans, Ottomans, British,...) and individual intense
personalities (Alexander, Attila, Stalin...) to name just a few
things. Somehow economists understand that notions like fiscal
and monetary policy or supply and demand are somehow important.
Biologists understand that mutation and selection and molecular
and cellular biology, biochemistry, and biophysics as well as
development and physiology and ecology somehow are related to
biological evolution. Yet you say these are all just exactly the
same thing.

Pretty much all the people who write those complexity theory
scribs you love to cite, at least the ones who are actually
serious scholars, have real day jobs where they do their real
work. All the others are poseurs, hangers on, going along for
the ride because they think it is fun but without really
understanding just where they are going.

[Jonathan]

I'm still waiting for you to answer the simple
question, define complexity, Mr Complexity Science?

This is an open book quiz and you can't do it.

And until you can your opinion on evolution let
alone reality or complexity science is worthless.

Please show the ng you're not that loon that
goes around pretending to be an authority
on say relativity without being able to
define the term space-time.

My challenge to you is THAT 101, if you can't
define complexity you haven't the first clue
how evolution works, let alone reality.

You're one of those, that if you were there
the day Galileo unveiled his telescope to the
public, would look through the glass and
say...'it's just a bunch of fuzzy lights'.

But I'm giving you a chance to prove otherwise
although I know you can't define the term
as it's an abstract concept.

Even though I've handed you the book opened
to the correct page a hundred times and
you're still clueless.

Pathetic, your attempt to say it's off topic
is not only wrong, it's an ignorant response.

[rsNorman]

rsNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> Wrote in message:

I should add that there are mathematicians whose day job is really
to study simple harmonic motion and chaos, or rather systems of
differential equations and the properties and categories of their
solutions. There are also people whose day job is to develop
ideas in complexity theory and complex dynamics systems as
abstract systems fully realizing that their work might well be
useful tools for use by people in various disciplines but by no
means believing that they are "The Answer" to everything in all
those various disciplines.

[jillery]

Do you mean those mathematicians can't give a step-by-step, detailed
explanation of the origin of the bacterial flagellum? So why are we
spending our tax dollars for their paper and pencils? I'm shocked,
SHOCKED I say.

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 08:12:44 -0500, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 11/6/2016 7:22 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:35:47 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/18/2016 1:42 PM, jillery wrote:
>>>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>>>> discusses the same question here:
>>>>
>>>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>>>
>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>>>
>>>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
>>>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>>>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>>>> to heart disease.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How about emotions, opinions, knowledge or
>>> world views?
>>>
>>> The mind is a CAS too, and evolves every
>>> single day, that should be obvious.
>>>
>>> One can't separate the mind and body from
>>> each other anymore than one can separate the
>>> autonomous agent from it's environment
>>> without destroying the evolutionary process.
>>>
>>> Without killing it.
>>>
>>> You've asked a really silly question.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I know, you ignore everybody who thinks humans were created in
>> God's image. Thanks for sharing.
>>
>
>
>You're reply is as empty as your question.

At least my reply was relevant to your post.

>I challenge you to answer the same question
>as I did Norman. Define complexity wrt complexity
>science. If you can't you haven't the
>/first clue/ how reality, nature or
>evolution works.

Since you want to talk about complexity and complexity science, try
posting your off-topic spam in alt.go-play-with-yourself.

>Please show the ng you're not another
>clueless Ray Martinez that utters
>uninformed opinions.
>
>It's a open book quiz, and you can't
>pass? Talk about pitiful.

So you fail me before I even get a chance to reply. You're just
shooting off your mouth first, and nevermind asking questions later.

[jillery]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:32:42 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm still waiting for you to answer the simple
>question, define complexity, Mr Complexity Science?

Why are you hijacking this topic with your off-topic spam? Did you
run out of bellybutton lint?

To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:

"Note to Moderator, this guy is really stupid, please
ban him from humanity."

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:35:47 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com>:

>On 10/18/2016 1:42 PM, jillery wrote:
>> The topic question was raised recently in T.O. elsetopic. Jerry Coyne
>> discusses the same question here:
>>
>> <https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/natural-selection-in-our-species-during-the-last-two-millennia/>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/j6rf8uz>
>>
>> Coyne points out there are longitudinal studies which document human
>> evolution of earlier reproductive maturity in females, later
>> menopause, and reduced blood pressure, and a few other traits related
>> to heart disease.
>>
>
>
>
>How about emotions, opinions, knowledge or
>world views?

Those are cultural, and their connection to biological
evolution (which, if I'm not mistaken, was the subject of
the OP) is tenuous at best.

>The mind is a CAS too, and evolves every
>single day, that should be obvious.

Again, this is not due to biological evolution, but to
culture.

>One can't separate the mind and body from
>each other anymore than one can separate the
>autonomous agent from it's environment
>without destroying the evolutionary process.
>
>Without killing it.
>
>You've asked a really silly question.

Not so. It's a perfectly valid question so long as one
restricts it to its intended subject.

>AN 534 Advanced Topics in Human Behavioral Evolution
>
>Prereq: Consent of instructor. Topics in the behavioral
>evolution of Homo sapiens including social and sexual
>behavior, tool traditions, diet and hunting, language
>and intelligence, and locomotion. This course considers
>(inferred) behavioral transitions that characterized
>the origin of our genus and our species. NS 4 cr.
>http://www.bu.edu/anthrop/courses/all-courses/500-level/
>
>
>
>http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n2/full/nrn3403.html
>
>
>
>s
>
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 10:31:56 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

There is an aphorism regarding hammers, nails and subjective
observations which seems appropriate...and which even
applies when the proponent isn't really clear regarding how
a hammer works. Or a nail.

[jillery]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 11:01:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 10:31:56 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 09:32:42 -0500, Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm still waiting for you to answer the simple
>>>question, define complexity, Mr Complexity Science?
>>
>>
>>Why are you hijacking this topic with your off-topic spam? Did you
>>run out of bellybutton lint?
>>
>>To quote someone whom you hold in such high regard:
>>
>>"Note to Moderator, this guy is really stupid, please
>>ban him from humanity."
>
>There is an aphorism regarding hammers, nails and subjective
>observations which seems appropriate...and which even
>applies when the proponent isn't really clear regarding how
>a hammer works. Or a nail.

My impression is hammers and nails are too complex for jonathan.

[Jonathan]

I didn't think you knew how to define the term, welcome
to 1990, as that's where your knowledge of evolutionary
thought ends. You're a quarter century behind the times
wrt evolution if you can't define 'complexity'.




s

[Jonathan]

Are you kidding me, this is your definition of complexity?
Citing a couple examples of complex behavior?
Are you stupid? How is that a definition of
the concept in any way, shape or form?

Let me reply in kind, I'm asked to define say gravity.

So if I were you I'd reply...if you drop a rock off
a building it hits the ground...if you hit a ball
with a bat it curves back to the ground...viola
I defined gravity.

You're an idiot.



s

[jillery]

Bad enough that you post off-topic subjects. You don't have to hijack
on-topic subjects as well.

[Jonathan]

Just pointing out your scientific ignorance, which
is profound. Complexity science has entirely
transformed evolutionary thought, it's placed
it in abstract form, and applied evolution
to e v e r y discipline under the sun.

The world in it's totality is being redefined
with evolutionary concepts and you're entirely
oblivious to this scientific revolution.

You're a 'flat-earther', still living within
an archaic world view that has been replaced
with one that...changes everything.

And you're too myopic and lazy to learn
the new way.

Your loss. It just makes me sad to see
people living their lives shrouded
in darkness.



Jonathan



s

[jillery]

Nope. All you're doing here is playing the troll.

>which
>is profound. Complexity science has entirely
>transformed evolutionary thought, it's placed
>it in abstract form, and applied evolution
>to e v e r y discipline under the sun.
>
>The world in it's totality is being redefined
>with evolutionary concepts and you're entirely
>oblivious to this scientific revolution.
>
>You're a 'flat-earther', still living within
>an archaic world view that has been replaced
>with one that...changes everything.
>
>And you're too myopic and lazy to learn
>the new way.
>
>Your loss. It just makes me sad to see
>people living their lives shrouded
>in darkness.
>
>
>
>Jonathan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 06 Nov 2016 10:55:44 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No response? OK.