| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 10:08:29 AM | | Survival of the fittest is the ability to adapt to new and challanging situations. Which sex initially shaped and which continues to shape human biological evolution, not technological evolution.? Why,& how? | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 10:18:51 AM | | Gender is ironic, we don’t really need it. Initially the division into different genders was driven by parasites, or at least the current theory suggests so. Two genders, via sex, create genotypic diversity that is needed to fend of those parasites. So to answer your question, it is neither. I suggest the book; The red queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature, by Matt Ridley. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 11:39:55 AM | | I think you miss the point, I am talkin specifically about humans, as we are unique among animal species. Firstly regarding our ancestors on the path to becomming as humans, as we are today. Prior to the revolution in stone technology we had to stand up first, become bipedal, other apes appear to not have found this necessary. We know the results of this change but the driving force, necessity male female driven? Which sex is more adap[table to change past and present? I think your Red Queen suggestion is unfortunately inappropriate in this context. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 12:09:11 PM | It's hard to imagine how one sex of any species would evolve without filtering those mutations through the genes they pass to their offspring of each sex. But I'm not an authority by any stretch.
 | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 12:29:19 PM | | There is no survival of the fittest. Humans evolved from the weakest apes that were forced out of the trees in a struggle for food. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 12:40:58 PM | There is no survival of the fittest.
No? Then please explain why certain parasitic organisms only attack the weak and the young, but a healthy adult is unaffected by them?
OP.. I'm still not sure what you're looking for on this one if you could explain it just one more time? It's a fascinating subject. I look at the ability of some animals, frogs for instance, to change sex as needed by the current conditions / populations in order to insure their survival. Is this something along the lines of what you're referring to? | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 1:17:25 PM | I tend to think it is more the female that would play a larger part in the evolutionary changes (biological not technological). As much as I tend to think it is more the male of the species that furthers technological evolution. Why? It's what we're designed for. Men (historically/biologically) are designed to be the hunter, gatherer, protector they are the tool builders (very generally speaking). Women are biologically designed to 'create' that new life and to pass on to it that which it needs to survive. The nurturers, teachers .. generally are the role of women. The whole conception to birth process is complex, amazing and overwhelming in and of itself. The mother carries the next generation for 9 months, feeding, stimulating and growing it into a human baby. The influence of the mothers lifestyle and eating habits alone suggest that the female has a larger role in biological evolutionary 'growth'.
Just my ponderings in the moment.
A.S.is
 | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 1:44:35 PM | All female species have the ability to sense which is the "healthiest" of the males species for the purposes of procreation; in the animal world, females reject those males that they sense are "inferior".
In the human sphere, females are also attracted to males that can provide healthy children and be able to provide for them, insuring that these children grow up healthy. This only applies if the female is motivated to have healthy children in the first place and has a say in who she can mate with.
The simple fact that humans are taller today has to do with healthier children which is a function of the choices the female made. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:24:15 PM | When you understand that all evolution is is mistakes in DNA then this one is quite easy to answer.
When a female mammal is born her eggs are already in her ovaries. They grow with her so there is very little chance of any mistakes.
The male, on the other hand produces sperm by the billion every day leading to a higher chance of mistakes that can be passed on to offspring. The older the male the more likelyhood of mistakes.
So basically, it's all the guys fault  | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:53:06 PM | I don't believe either plays more of a role than the other.
Sure, the female gender is biologically the 'older', but in animals with two genders, they both play extremely important roles. Males, generally being bigger, and more physically inclined, are important for hunting, defending territories, warfare etc.
Females are the ones more inclined to co-operate instead of fight amongst themselves (OK, exceptions to every rule...). They're also traditionally the nurturer etc. Basically, the male goes out and provides raw materials for survival (basic structure, meat, tools etc.), and the females traditionally (and biologically), seem to make life more bearable and keep the children alive.
Not to say that males can't be good solo parents, or nurturers etc. or vice versa, but for the sake of this argument, I've got no choice but to make these generalisations.
Sexual selection is also certainly not the sole preserve of women. You just need to look in the 'relationships' or 'dating and sex' threads to see that. If you want further proof, just have a look at the porn industry. Sexual attraction amongst both genders is certainly not 'unbiased'.
Anyway, in summary: Both genders have led to where we are today and played roles of equal importance.
Mind you, that point about the preponderence of male gamete is a very good point. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 3:55:29 PM | | I'm pretty sure I took a Human Lifespan Development class that stated women are actually the carriers for most birth/genetic defects. I could have done some research and com better prepared...but I didn't. :)- | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 5:05:25 PM | I don't think either sex has more "say" in evolution of humankind. We climbed out of the trees in search of more and better foods....climate change may have forced the issue even more. Having large predators nibbling on their azzes may have forced the species to be able to defend themsleves with sticks and stones....and some brightboy figured out that sharper stones hurt the predator more...and if they poked it with a stick! Hey...brilliant! Sharp stone on a stick!
Males did the bulk of the hunting, and a certain amount of gathering, while females looked after the hearth and children, and food preparation and storage. Males became larger in stature....the eyes closer for far vision, the females were smaller in stature, eyes spaced wider to keep an eye on the kids and for threats to the home. Males stood more, wlaking distances and chasing things. Females didn't have to walk as much. The tribes would have followed the herds to keep their food supply from running out. Female voices were pitched higher, for the sound to carry further...males voices lower so they could converse without scaring every bit of game away from the area.
Lots of theories, etc....no real proof.
Now if we go off on a bit of a tangent here....Eve being created from Adams rib, unlike his first wife Lilith....could be a bit of genetic instability there. I've heard some people speak of some women as "Being a daughter of Eve" (a basic compliment) as opposed to being a "daughter of Lilith"...errr...not so good.
anyhow's.....have fun trying to figure it out! | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 5:39:19 PM |
There is no survival of the fittest.
No? Then please explain why certain parasitic organisms only attack the weak and the young, but a healthy adult is unaffected by them? The fittest people, when overcome by any form of weakness of the immune system, such as overwork, or not enough food, or not enough sleep, are attacked by parasitic organisms. Without this nature, all adults with no direct weaknesses would be attacked equally by viruses. Either no-one would get colds and flu or cholera, or everyone would. But we know this is not the case, so we know that the current status of the immune system is what determines who suffers from organisms and who doesn't.
There is a greater probability of young, old, and weak people getting attacked by viruses because their immune systems tend to be weaker than a healthy adult. But in general, one who is already sick in some way, either by an existing illness, or by malnutrition of lack of sleep, or great damage to the body such as that caused by excessive consumption of drugs or alcohol, seems to have a far weaker immune system than the young, old and infirm.
Survival of the fittest is the ability to adapt to new and challanging situations. Which sex initially shaped and which continues to shape human biological evolution, not technological evolution.? Why,& how? From what I understand, there appears to be 4 objects involved in reproduction of humans: the female egg, the male sperm, the female chromosomes and the male chromosomes.
The male sperm doesn't appear to be involved apart from the chromosomes it provides.
The female egg that the chromosomes grow in. Although it appears that most modern evolutionary scientists only consider the chromosomes.
The male and female chromosomes each appear to provide half of the chromosomes that form the DNA of the new foetus, so they are about equal in that regard.
I would expect that according to most modern evolutionary scientists, males and females are about equal, because they each provide about half of the genetics.
According to a small minority of modern evolutionary scientists, genes are only half the picture, and the cell itself and the environment around it, also have a large effect on growth and development. So according to them, I would expect that the female has the greatest effect. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/20/2008 11:41:20 PM | Just thought I might add a little here.
The definition for 'fitness' in terms of evolution isn't exactly the same as applied in popular culture today.
The 'fitness' referred to in evolutionary theory is purely reproductive fitness, as in they who survive long enough to have many offspring, are the fittest. For example, it doesn't matter if you're a Blonde Adonis with a genius IQ and the business sense of Donald Trump if females do not want to, or can't breed with you (unlikely given all that going for you, but then all us average males have a little hope... ).
Those with a resistance to a widespread disease (e.g. the plague) were not necessarily stronger than those before, they just survived a selection process that others did not, and hence, passed their genes on. Therefore, they're 'fitter'.
Just a bit of clarification in case anyone needed it. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:55:01 AM | I didn’t miss the point. You asked which gender drives biological evolution in humans. I answered it, neither does. It is a small piece of a larger process that is based on mutually driven and innate decisions that effectively allows us to stay one step ahead of parasites. This characteristic exists in all species that operates with sex, it operated when we were in the savannah and it operates now in our concrete jungles. Both the human genders seek traits in there mate that provide the superior genes for creating the next generation. So any question that asks a question “which sex”, needs to answer or account for the question “why sex”.
We are not that unique, only a very slight difference separates us from our ancestors. We don’t have many or any cool traits, so many more animals and non-animals do such cool stuff, like appendage regeneration, or asexual reproduction. Many of what we call human traits can found elsewhere in the animal kingdom.
Lastly, I would love to know why a person that is asking a question about evolution and human nature finds a book on evolution and human nature to be inappropriate. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/21/2008 12:41:38 PM | | Long term, very long term, males will largely die out; they're not needed. This has already happened. Look at Kryptolebias marmoratus for example. It's a fish, and while there are males, they're extremely rare. The species does fine without them. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/22/2008 1:08:45 PM | | In support of rsx11s, you might want to check out Brian Sykes, "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men" . He's a genticist based in the UK who has written quite a few books on the evolution of DNA and theX, Y chromosomes. The book details his hypothesis that men's fertility is decreasing generation by generation and the X chromosome is winning out over the Y chromosome. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/22/2008 2:00:16 PM | in the very long run women will die out as well:
if not by natural or a human-made catastrophe,
than they change so much that they won't be the same homo sapiens species any more...
so, enjoy the moment, because in the very ,ong run both men and women will be just history! | |
|
zom
|
Joined: 1/19/2008
Msg: 19 | |
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/22/2008 3:28:43 PM | Prior to the revolution in stone technology we had to stand up first, become bipedal, other apes appear to not have found this necessary. Humans evolved from the shortest of apes, who had to stand up in the back if they wanted to see anything. It caught on. Being already in the back, they were first out in times of danger, hence survival advantage, Evolution is not about adaptation to prosper, it is about remaining by default as other variations die out. Man is no different from any other species, except for that he thinks himself so. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/22/2008 3:51:45 PM | | Apart from asexual reproduction such as bacteria / amoeba / and plants with the stigma and stamen. But true for the rest of us! Hell its fun too!! | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/22/2008 4:10:56 PM | Im not sure its proven were from apes, they were thinking of fish also? etc.
If I know something about biology its that EVERYTHING has a reason and makes sense. I also know that the Y chromosome is deficient in genes to the X, and thus women are better at somethings than men, but men are better at other things. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/23/2008 1:51:47 AM | > Which sex initially shaped and which continues to shape human biological evolution...
Males and male behavior are the result of a breeding experiment run by women.
So the choice (or "shaping" if you prefer) is exercised by women, but the results are expressed in men.
Genetic studies have shown that evolution takes place about twice as fast in males, who are thus on the leading edge of things (which is why they drive technological evolution also) and 'dragging' the females along with them. The old ball and chain is no myth after all. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/23/2008 8:18:20 AM | It is a theory that the begining of evolution was Asexual. Then a problem occured allowing what exists for reprodution; the need of two parts of one species to reproduce another.
Unless we begin to have a new Asexual species of humans, what is shal remain. Neither shall win out over the other.
And if you consider the theories of religion and evolution and how things began, each strongly believes in the theory of Asexualness as the start off point and then a switch to two part species reproduction. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/23/2008 10:36:11 AM |
I tend to think it is more the female that would play a larger part in the evolutionary changes (biological not technological). As much as I tend to think it is more the male of the species that furthers technological evolution. Why? It's what we're designed for. That theory fails though, because there are so many women who are good at the technological side. That is most certainly how my brain functions. Calculus makes a lot more sense to me than poetry.....actually it makes a lot more sense to me than a lot of things. | |
|
| Evolutionary question?
Posted: 1/23/2008 9:16:08 PM |
Unless we begin to have a new Asexual species of humans,
You don't get out much do ya? | |
|
Home
login 
