| Evolution
Posted: 3/20/2008 6:46:58 PM | I read an article that stated red heads were 'a dying breed'. This got me thinking. I wondered if there were going to be a mass evolution over millions of years, of the human race, wiping out all degenerative genes. Survival of the fittest. So, if we are all going to have the same genes, we will all look the same?
How about this. Another race of evolved human beings will also exist. These will have evolved to be carriers of the degenerative genes shed by the 'superior race'.
Just some random thoughts, comments wanted! | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/20/2008 9:50:40 PM | | There's really no such thing as superior or inferior genes. At least not in the sense you're talking about. Think about the gene(s) for skin color. Having dark skin is an advantage in equatorial zones because it provides protection against UV radiation. But in northern latitudes it is inferior because it reduces the amount of vitamin D that the body produces. Those of us with light skin, have the reverse issues. We burn easily in the sun, but at northern latitudes we're better able to produce vitamin D. Another example is the gene that causes sickle cell anemia. That results in numerous health problems, but it also gives immunity to malaria. In a few million years human beings won't exist. We'll have evolved into other species or gone extinct. In either case there won't be a superior race and a degenerate race. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 3:17:29 AM | | Wouldn't some kind of long term geographic isolation of the two breeding groups need to exist in order for homo sapiens to branch out into two separate species? With today's ease of global travel, this doesn't look likely. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 4:38:41 AM | | Degenerative and recessive are not the same thing. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 7:59:09 AM |
I read an article that stated red heads were 'a dying breed'.
I'd be interested in the details of the article. My intuition tells me that hair colour genetics are not the same as those for other human traits. That is, with eye colour, there are specific genes for blue, brown, and other colours. Brown is dominant over blue, so even if you have a blue gene and a brown gene, your eyes will be brown.
I don't know if the same is true for hair colour. That is, if a blonde-haired man and black-haired woman have babies, won't their children have hair that is brown? Is there actually a gene that determines hair colour?
What happens when their children have children? Are their hair genes black and blonde or something else?
Any geneticists out there that know about genes for hair colour? | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 8:51:01 AM | I don't know if the same is true for hair colour. That is, if a blonde-haired man and black-haired woman have babies, won't their children have hair that is brown? Is there actually a gene that determines hair colour?
The genetics aren't well understood. Apparently there's at least two genes. One gene codes for brown (dominant) or blond (recessive). The other codes for not-red (dominant) or red (recessive). This model can't account for everything though, so it's likely that there are more genes at work here. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 9:15:47 AM | {How about this. Another race of evolved human beings will also exist. These will have evolved to be carriers of the degenerative genes shed by the 'superior race'.
Just some random thoughts, comments wanted!}
according to Quantum precept, this has already happened. Every possible outcome has popped in and out of existence in the same instance, its up to you to follow the thesis to its logical course. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 10:21:15 AM | Evolution simply uses what works and discards the rest. And, when there is an abrupt change to the overlying environmental system, the lifeforms that are best suited to that environment survive. Occasionally, there are "experiments" by evolution. Random mutations that crop up that either contribute to that organism's survival or contribute to it's demise.
There are no "superior" races of anything. Just organisms best suited for that particular environment at that time. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/21/2008 12:48:08 PM | sexual selection may weed out gingers ,although I thought red headed women are considered to be be quite desirable ? and men are seldom judged on looks more on status ,hmmmm I think gingers are here to stay .
plus desirability of hair colours I guess is down to the vagaries of fashion | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/22/2008 11:43:22 AM | I think it is likely humans will separate into two distinct species. Already, the rich and the poor are becoming more insulted from each other. This will probably continue. Genetic material from one group will not be passed to the other. Because there are, and will continue to be, fewer rich than poor, the gene pool of the poor will be more diverse. This will give the advantage to the poor. So in time, of the two groups, the poor will end up being the superior of the two species.
The rich will likely end up in zoos, but will be to stupid to understand their fate. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/22/2008 11:29:09 PM | | It is virtually impossible for us to all have the same genes! Sexual recombination pretty much ensures that! We will never all look the same, unless we start deliberately tinkering with the genes of all successive children to achieve this, for some unknown purpose! | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/23/2008 7:53:57 AM | Hi Hank,
Sounds like the European aristocracy throughout the Middle Ages.
They didn't end up in zoos, however, although locking them up might have been a better idea. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/23/2008 6:13:51 PM | Modern medical practice is trying to keep people with "bad" genes alive longer...thereby allowing them to breed and pass those genetic failures on to the next generation. It has been put "The way to clean the genetic pool is to allow those with genetic diseases to die out, thereby making the total race stronger." Humans are the only species on the planet that not only allows but encourages genetically defective people to "be normal, have a family, etc."
It costs a fortune to the taxpayer and to the fmailies who work so hard to support these people.
Fortunatly, we do this...not just because of compassion, but because of our humanity. Would Stephen Hawkings be alive today if he had not been given the medical attention and financial support needed to get him where he is today? A world class physicist...we need more with that kind of brain power!
We don't know what will become of our children, nor in what direction their lives will go...we just raise them and hope for the best. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/24/2008 4:47:48 AM |
Modern medical practice is trying to keep people with "bad" genes alive longer...thereby allowing them to breed and pass those genetic failures on to the next generation
made this point in the other evolution thread ,and agree .
although no expert on the subject i think the effects are still marginal ,but could be a problem in the future . | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/25/2008 6:39:59 AM | Redheads going extinct??? Damn! I better start breeding with the slight red genes I have ASAP!!!
Power to the REDHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/25/2008 9:46:58 AM | | The red hair thing is a myth, red hair is caused by a recessive gene, that can typically skip generations and it is rare but it is extremely unlikely that will be bread out unless all red heads and carriers of the recessive gene are sterilized. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 3/26/2008 10:44:28 AM | Dang that Anne of Green Gables...why couldn't she just settle down and have 15 kids like any other Irish immigrant?  | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 4/5/2008 8:35:31 PM |
I wondered if there were going to be a mass evolution over millions of years, of the human race, wiping out all degenerative genes. Survival of the fittest. So, if we are all going to have the same genes, we will all look the same?
You have one little detail about survival that isn't quite accurate. It's a common misconception in evolutionary theory.
It's not "survival of the fittest." It's survival of the fit enough. There are people everywhere on earth that have "degenerative" genes that cause them to die for any number of reasons, but many of them have reproduced successfully. In some cases, those "degenerative genes" are passed on and the offspring dies as well. But, if the "degenerative gene" is expressed as recessive in their offspring, the offspring will likely survive.
Fitness simply means the ability to survive and successfully reproduce. Using this definition of fit, it doesn't matter that the parent died of degenerative genetics as long as they successfully reproduced.
Your other question is one of uniformitarianism, where breeding creates a blended offspring. I would find it unlikely that all of humanity would eventually be blended into one set of phenotypes expressed uniformly. There are dominant and recessive genes and these are expressed in an incredibly complex and random way. There are millions of millions of combinations possible in just one human, male or female. In a male, no two sperm contain the same genetic information. I'm sure the same is true of the female gamete, but I haven't read up on that side yet. With this in mind, it is my opinion that the human race will completely die out before they approach anything resembling a blended race.
Your other idea of a separate race of humans is plasuible, I suppose. If you look at our evolutionary tree, humans and our simian cousins have descended from a common ancestor. It is no stretch that another branching could occur, resulting in two separate species. But, there would have to be a great deal of difference between the two of them. One thing about a species is that it cannot interbreed with another species. If the races you posited earlier were exactly as you described, they would not be subspecies of human. They would be HumanA and HumanB, separate species unable to interbreed. The superior race would be, of course, superior. The degenerative race would be degenerative. The fitness of those two species would be measured by reproductive success. Now, unless you actually meant that the human race became segmented into two subspecies, one degenerative and one superior, with interbreeding possible, that raises different questions. Again, in my opinion, I don't think it would come to that.
Here is a story that might add something to this. A friend of mine is a redhead. Her brother and sister are too. Her mom is blonde, though, and part Cherokee. (Native Americans usually have dark brown or black hair.) Her dad is hispanic with black hair. Her parents were so bothered by this that they got paternity tests on all of the kids. Turns out that they were indeed the parents. This shows that recessive genes CAN be expressed.
Interestingly enough, I heard the same story about natural blondes. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 4/5/2008 11:05:54 PM | While I basically agree...
One thing about a species is that it cannot interbreed with another species.
This is an old and easily disproven concept. It's a theoretical ideal which does not match the real world. There are in fact numerous examples of:
a) distinct species which are now merging into one
b) ring species, in which some the whole is compatible on average, but individual parts are not. [The middle of the ring can interbreed, but the ends and bridges cannot]
c) species of demonstrable hybrid origin [LOTS of these]
d) intergeneric hybrids [species which are only distant relatives].
The inability to interbreed is only one possible cause of speciation, not a requirement to be a distinct species. Isolation can be achieved by a number of means which may break down over time. Geography changes, thus removing physical barriers between populations. Climate changes, thus bringing incompatible breeding seasons together. Genetic changes occur, leading to abnormal behavior which may be compatible with OTHER species. Environments change, resulting in overlapping niches. Reproductive isolation may be seasonal, geographic, habitat, reproductive behavior, morphological, genetic, chromosomal, etc...
The only real requirement of any species is unity. It must be a group of organisms which interbreeds more or less freely with each other, and has more in common with each other than with anything else. This doesn't preclude hybridization [after all, the word "hybrid" exists because it has an application], it just makes it an abnormal event. Abnormal...but sometimes common.
I think it's fairly likely that further speciation will occur within humans. It won't be the first time more than one hominid coexisted. There is evidence of increasing divergence among humans, and there is atill a strong tendency for races and cultures to "stick together". Even within a "melting pot" community, reproducing outside the race and culture is somewhat unusual. The majority determines the nature of the gene pool. Our population continues to grow, enhancing opportunities to diverge, but at the same time, keeping most communities somewhat cohesive. What happens when we have populations off-Earth, who cannot readily back and forth to Earth or other populations? Their limited gene pools will diverge. If such populations are established by the efforts of single governments, it's likely that they will begin as mainly representing a single limited genetic group.
Superior and inferior? "Degenerative"? No. Adaptive. There are no inferior or degenerative species - they are superior for the niche they occupy. These terms are human cultural bias, misapplied to a natural system which only recognizes "dead" and "reproducing". | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 4/6/2008 5:45:02 AM | There is no doubt that evolution does exist. I don't believe that you will obtain a superior race. Superior to what and Superior in what way? Being a genius? It's abnormal to being a genius and is now classified as being a mental illness because the information process can not be compensated for baisc behavior, Social skills or other delay cognitive thoughts and understanding such as reading, math. Perfect examples are John Nash, Einstein and Mozart
I had one child in my class that I tought has Aspergers Syndrom (form of a genus, think Bill Gates has this syndrome) He has a compulsive thought about mechanical ideas such as fans and relations to a plane, jets and helicoptors and his favorite locks. For the mechanics of locks, he knows all the parts and how its put together. For fans in jets He knows every single part and how it is put together. One thing he was only 5 years old and could not read and was deficient in knowing all the letters in the alphabet, lacked social skills. In a crowd of people he has anxiety attacks and he will be out of control. | |
|
| Evolution
Posted: 4/6/2008 7:20:40 AM |
I read an article that stated red heads were 'a dying breed'. This got me thinking. I wondered if there were going to be a mass evolution over millions of years, of the human race, wiping out all degenerative genes. Survival of the fittest. So, if we are all going to have the same genes, we will all look the same? I doubt this would ever happen, mainly because animals have unique features, and you can see this, because you can always identify your pet. However, I do notice that many species do have similar colours, so it might be likely that in the future, everyone who lives in the same climate will have the same skin, hair and eye colours.
How about this. Another race of evolved human beings will also exist. These will have evolved to be carriers of the degenerative genes shed by the 'superior race'.
Just some random thoughts, comments wanted! This race already exists. It's every member of the human race. Take the degenerative sickle cell gene, which seems to be far more common in areas endemic with malaria than in other areas. The superior race has no such genes and most die off of malaria. The inferior race carries the degenerative gene, of which the minority who carry both genes, develop sickle-cell anaemia and also die off. The rest of the inferior race carries only one copy of the sickle-cell gene, and seem to be immune from both malaria and sickle-cell anaemia. Thus, inferior races survive to live another day, and superior races die off. This is in keeping with Darwin, who said:
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” In other words, the most superior species of all, is the most easily influenced. It will always be pushed to adapt. Weakness is a survival trait. | |
|
Home
login 
