To summarize, sickle-cell anemia in dominant cases (ii) kills the individual. However, in recessive cases (Ii) it offers protection from malaria. What is bad for the dominant case is actually good for the population, hence sickle-cell anemia persists in areas where malaria is more wide-spread, but is decreasing where it isn’t.
[/quote]
So you mean that the parnt having the gene can increase offspring survival rates in there offspring? Noo…
Yes, it’s can benefit individuals in certain areas, you it’s more prevalent of a gene there. Exactly what I’ve been saying.
Hell, read your own quote man:
“To summarize, sickle-cell anemia in dominant cases (ii) kills the individual . However, in recessive cases (Ii) it offers protection from malaria [for the individual]”
Bold mine.
I was using the terms interchangeably. And you didn’t answer my question. Are you proposing evolutionary mechanisms take place on a population (group) level of a pride?
Doubleduce- Go read through my previous post again. All of the mechanisms of evolution can only be understood with looking at SUM of the interactions of individuals, not the isolated cases of individuals. What’s beneficial for one individual is not always beneficial for the population and likewise, what’s negative for one individual isn’t always negative for the population. You cannot look at one interaction of individuals and conclude that because one individual came out on top that one time, that it’s method is the right way and going to win out. Evolution is about the over all win throughout time, consisting of many generations.
Also, competition between individuals is good for the population. It’s the basis of evolution (also mentioned in my previous post near the end). Male lions have been competing for reproductive rights for a long time and this has provided some benefits. The majority of the time, the male lion who takes over does reproduce successfully and the new genes increase the fitness of the population through variation, which you can’t have as much of if the same male fathers many, many generations. Also, it’s assumed that a lion who takes over is stronger and has better genes. Once again, we’re looking at a trend here, not the one case where he was infertile.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Doubleduce- Go read through my previous post again. All of the mechanisms of evolution can only be understood with looking at SUM of the interactions of individuals, not the individuals.
[/quote]
Never said anything even remotely otherwise.
Never said anything even remotely otherwise.
Never said anything even remotely otherwise.
Never said anything even remotely otherwise.
Wrong, it can be, but sometimes it’s bad too.
This is a by product of the individual mode of evolution, not the mechanism.
[quote]
Also, it’s assumed that a lion who takes over is stronger and has better genes. Once again, we’re looking at a trend here, not the one case where he was infertile.[/quote]
Wrong. It only means the lion is better at fighting. It is entirely possible that he leads to larger offspring requiring more food and leads to starvation in the pride.
There is no tie between the lions behavior and benefit to it’s society other than is incidental.
"Infanticide happens when the tenure of the Alpha Male is likely to be shorter than the time needed to rear offspring. " And why is the tenure going to be shorter? Because other males are taking over. No shit.
[/quote]
Nononono- it is not that simple.
Its a game of probabilities, he can expect an average tenure of around 1,5 years but his offspring needs around 3 years.
That lion cannot wait for the females to get fertile again, he must bring that process along any way he can, so he does.
Those cups could have had much better genes than his, he simply does not care, he is programmed to spread his genes.
Also, when it comes to the evolution of behavior I can honestly say that I would not take college courses, I feel no need to rehash stuff I read years ago.
Your assertion that evolution happens on a group level and that that is believed by the majority of biologists is just flat out wrong.
Points can be made for group selection, within certain scenarios and that is about where we are right now.
edit: then again, I kind of listen to this course right now, but this guy is awesometasticlicious.
Gotta make a mental note of who the nazi-eugenics-black-people-are-genetically-stupid folks are next time a good morality thread comes up. This will be remembered and it will be brought up and thrown in your faces… Just sayin’. Don’t bother, because if you really believe this shit, moral you are not.
Abortion rates litteraly exploded when we stopped trying these. So it seems that, during centuries, the fear of being prosecuted and/or socially condemned has been somehow stronger than the hardwired ‘fear of not being able to survive’ with a baby.
[/quote]
kamui you are owning this thread.
Your English seems to have taken an astronomical leap forward recently, as well.
I would love to be able to enter the fray with a vast knowledge of genetics. However, it seems to me that the whole debate has been hijacked and genetics should not even be considered in the original discussion.
We were simply discussing downs syndrome and how approximately 90% of children with this disorder are aborted. Survival and strengthening of the species were posited as reasons to condone such action. But I ask you, “How many downs syndrome sufferers do you know of that have ever been allowed to breed?” The obvious answer is that for all intents and purposes, none. It is not expected and never intended, nor would it be allowed. I am not going to argue the possibility as
MEN WITH DOWNS SYNDROME, WITH RARE EXCEPTION, ARE NOT ABLE TO FATHER A CHILD.
Therefore, the whole genetic argument is basically moot. Parents choosing to abort such pregnancies are not doing the species a service. They are simply rationalizing the worth of another life in comparison to the effect it will have on the comfort of their own.
People, stop bringing eugenics into this debate on either side of the argument, we’re too retarded as a species to decide our own genetic future. Let natural selection do its job (protip: abortion is not natural selection).
Please go take some college level biology, maybe even contribute to the pool of knowledge while you’re at it, and come back. I can’t handle the slaughter of concepts going on in here.
Kamui- I hope you realize that the reason people agree with you in here is because you stand by their religious beliefs. I noticed you haven’t pointed out that during the bans on abortion and throughout many societies, people have devised countless methods of supposedly ending pregnancies. You cannot have missed that in your cultural studies.
Doublduce- just go take the classes. I have nothing more to say to you that wouldn’t take a year to get across and result in zero thanks. You’ve already changed some of your arguments to align with the information I’ve provided in the course of our conversation, but are still pretending like you haven’t and also just not understanding entirely what’s up with evolution.
Makalvi- you too. No, abortion is not evolution but it does contribute to the overal evolution of a population in that it may or may not result in certain offpsing getting better care or a person not reproducing. Once again, basic concepts here.
All I saying is that this abortion thing is old, it’s not going away no matter how much you dislike it, and it never has completely gone away in any society. It stems from a very basic fear, which policies may quell in a some, but will not completely destroy in all (kind of like the urge to reproduce). It’s been more common in some societies than others; hunter gatherer societies practiced both infantcide and believed they knew ways of ridding themselves of pregnancy through herbal cures or even less proven methods. Some mothers in places where the child survival rate is less than 50% have even suspended care of infants/young children who don’t seem to “want life as much”.
Now I love seeing a person/child survive all odds and I will do everything I can to help one that’s alive and within my influence. However, this abortion thing is clearly deeper than my personal code of ethics and I believe all of your’s as well and I am not going to tell someone that abortion is any less human nature, given a certain set of circumstances, than violence or greed.
I am also convinced that no one else on here is going to be convinced of that through an internet conversation. So I am done here.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Makalvi- you too. No, abortion is not evolution but it does contribute to the overal evolution of a population in that it may or may not result in certain offpsing getting better care or a person not reproducing. Once again, basic concepts here.[/quote]
I’m not “prolife”. Let’s be clear on that. I have no desire to be lumped in with the goons who think they can dictate what a woman can do with her own body and then stop caring once the child is born.
And eugenics is artificial selection. Artificial selection is not the best route for evolution. We’re just too stupid as a species. It’s that simple.
People who get downs syndrome children aborted do it for two reasons:
To spare themselves (probably most common, but it’s their lives, I’m not in a position to judge them).
To spare the child (fairly compassionate, but still ethically murky - although I’m not going to judge them for it).
The whole premise of this thread is that knuckledragger69 has realized that propaganda posters of children who don’t know why they are being photographed holding signs they clearly didn’t write are a way to tug at the heartstrings of the less educated and intellectually challenged (i.e. most Republicans). What he fails to understand is that most people just don’t care. It hasn’t affected them yet, so they give it no thought.
And why should they? It’s not their lives, the child is never born and everything goes along much as it did before. Is this cold? Yes. Is this true? Even more so.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Doubleduce- Go read through my previous post again. All of the mechanisms of evolution can only be understood with looking at SUM of the interactions of individuals, not the isolated cases of individuals. What’s beneficial for one individual is not always beneficial for the population and likewise, what’s negative for one individual isn’t always negative for the population. You cannot look at one interaction of individuals and conclude that because one individual came out on top that one time, that it’s method is the right way and going to win out. Evolution is about the over all win throughout time, consisting of many generations.
Also, competition between individuals is good for the population. It’s the basis of evolution (also mentioned in my previous post near the end). Male lions have been competing for reproductive rights for a long time and this has provided some benefits. The majority of the time, the male lion who takes over does reproduce successfully and the new genes increase the fitness of the population through variation, which you can’t have as much of if the same male fathers many, many generations. Also, it’s assumed that a lion who takes over is stronger and has better genes. Once again, we’re looking at a trend here, not the one case where he was infertile.[/quote]
I just want to be clear that:
A) You realize theory does not equal fact even if taught in universities
B) Evolution and immediate survival really have nothing to do with modern, western mothers aborting babies even if evolution is true.
Doublduce- just go take the classes. I have nothing more to say to you that wouldn’t take a year to get across and result in zero thanks. You’ve already changed some of your arguments to align with the information I’ve provided in the course of our conversation, but are still pretending like you haven’t and also just not understanding entirely what’s up with evolution.
[/quote]
What arguments did I change? You just claiming so doesn’t make it true. At least point out what I changed on.
I have systematically gone through and responded to every one of your points. Even the ones where you were trying to contradict me and repeating things very similar to statements I had made and the other points where you put up quotes that supported exactly what I was saying.
I have raised numerous issues with your statements and you have failed to respond to most of them. If your education is so vastly superior you should be able to easily and directly address points. Instead on this last post you hurl insults without any actual argument.
The truth is that you are leaving because you’re acting like a kid who’s mad he’s losing so he’s taking his ball and going home.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Makalvi- you too. No, abortion is not evolution but it does contribute to the overal evolution of a population in that it may or may not result in certain offpsing getting better care or a person not reproducing. Once again, basic concepts here.[/quote]
I’m not “prolife”. Let’s be clear on that. I have no desire to be lumped in with the goons who think they can dictate what a woman can do with her own body and then stop caring once the child is born.
And eugenics is artificial selection. Artificial selection is not the best route for evolution. We’re just too stupid as a species. It’s that simple.
People who get downs syndrome children aborted do it for two reasons:
To spare themselves (probably most common, but it’s their lives, I’m not in a position to judge them).
To spare the child (fairly compassionate, but still ethically murky - although I’m not going to judge them for it).
The whole premise of this thread is that knuckledragger69 has realized that propaganda posters of children who don’t know why they are being photographed holding signs they clearly didn’t write are a way to tug at the heartstrings of the less educated and intellectually challenged (i.e. most Republicans). What he fails to understand is that most people just don’t care. It hasn’t affected them yet, so they give it no thought.
And why should they? It’s not their lives, the child is never born and everything goes along much as it did before. Is this cold? Yes. Is this true? Even more so.[/quote]
It is murky though isn’t it, to try and preserve one moral abomination while denouncing another?
I’ll judge them for it, they are selfish, weak, pathetic, repugnant assholes; each and every one of them.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Please go take some college level biology, maybe even contribute to the pool of knowledge while you’re at it, and come back. I can’t handle the slaughter of concepts going on in here.
Kamui- I hope you realize that the reason people agree with you in here is because you stand by their religious beliefs. I noticed you haven’t pointed out that during the bans on abortion and throughout many societies, people have devised countless methods of supposedly ending pregnancies. You cannot have missed that in your cultural studies.
[/quote]
Uh no, I agree with Kamui because he happens to be right in what he is saying. If he was defending your points, I would most definitely be disagreeing with him despite things he has said in the past.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Please go take some college level biology, maybe even contribute to the pool of knowledge while you’re at it, and come back. I can’t handle the slaughter of concepts going on in here…
[/quote]
IC, you’re going to take this as an ad hominem [coughNo More Strawman - Politics and World Issues - Forums - T Nation] but my thoughts are you’re so doggone full of yourself and your biology degree that you’ve decided to attempt to flaunt your store bought knowledge on this thread.
I’m not impressed. FWIW.
Your faux exasperation over what you perceive to be others’ inability to see things your way because of your vastly superior education is pathetic…
…and pathetic people are surely worthy of eugenics-in-motion consideration when the time rolls around for implementation, isn’t it?
[/quote]
You don’t need a biology degree to know right from wrong. I don’t need a degree of anykind to know that if you abort because you don’t like something about the child, you are lower than dog shit.