Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

The rise of Man


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Ynse

Ynse

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:13 AM

Well i have a some what controversial topic.
Yesterday i was watching a documentary on the discovery channel, it was about the rise of humans as the dominant species ( if there is such a thing).
According to antropologists there were then 4 species of humans (no not races thats a different thing, and im not toughing that with a hundred foot pole) and we were 200.000 strong living side by side.
Modern humans (H.sapiens) lived together with the others species such as H. habilis and H. erectus. Some say H. sapiens fed on the others and have eaten them to exstinction. Haha?.
About 70.000 years ago something bad happend and all but 2000 died, cause of this is heavily debated some say it was disease, some say it was a climate change. Fact remains that there where not nearly enough individuals left to maitain a healthy gene pool.
They came up with this theory after counting genetic markers in al present human races. A job that took years !
I believe the situation was so bad that even the World Wildlife Fund wouldnt have taken the trouble of saving our species because there were simply not enough of us.
Now heres my thought on the subject.
If you take lets say 100 rabbits and let them breed with out introducing new genes from other groups of rabbits.
After a while you will start to see defects in some of those rabbits, some of those rabbits will be sterile because of these defects, but some of them will be able to reproduce and so contaminate the gene pool further and further.
After a longer period the defects will be so great that live expectance drops dramaticaly. So my thought was. Are we like those 100 rabbits. Are our defects the direct result of this bottle neck in our evolution.
I know damn well its a very dangerous subject, but i cant get the thought out of my mind.
If this theory is correct mankind will not live happely ever after, in fact it will make us the inferiour species.
Will genetic birth defects get worse as our species evolves.
Is the global stupidity of today a result of one of those defects.
Could it be that our species should never have become "dominant" because of this, and why didnt Mother nature pull the plug on us.
I hope im not to controversial and that im not misunderstood.
I DO NOT believe in racial difference (this affects all humans) And i do NOT believe in eugenics. People are people and im only one the 1.6 billion running around on this planet, no different from you or whoever. The fact that the human race is sick is frightning, I mean look around you and see how weak we are compared to other life on earth, look how stupid and irrational we behave.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 12:57 PM

Mankind is the only species capable of intruding on Darwin's theory of evolution, inasmuch as mankind can change the natural order of things both in an individual occasion as well as globally. Because of this uniqueness, applying concepts derived from the nature of other animals, can be misleading. With the improvement in medical care (especially in the last 100 years), for example, it would seem to me that the percentage of botched or "defective" births is actually declining.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#3 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams


  • Admin
  • 43,504 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:03:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 01:17 PM

With the improvement in medical care (especially in the last 100 years), for example, it would seem to me that the percentage of botched or "defective" births is actually declining.


I couldnt agree more. With new genetic testing that is available to all people who want to have children, there is a large filtering of bad defects/diseases/conditions.

Only in certain populations like the Amish, who refuse to allow genetic testing, are showing an increased level birth defects and conditions due to a small gene pool to work with. They consider this God's Will though and accept that.

Chasidic/Orthodox jews, on the other hand, have a program, Dor Yeshorim, in some of the areas of New york (and maybe elsewhere) where all high school students are tested to see if they are a carrier for a common Ashkenazi Jew disease called Taysachs. The students do not receive the results, but they are rather given a 6 digit number. Then when two jews who are part of this program want to get married they are asked to a call a hotline where they both enter their numbers. This will tell them if they are both carriers, and thus have a 25% of having a taysachs baby, and are thus incompatible. Though, some may consider it to be extreme, it is an effective method of culling this disorder from this particular population.

On the other hand, some disorders like Autism are being theorized to be naturally selected as a way of making us smarter and autism is not able to be detected before birth or even a few years after birth.

On another note, could the decrease in "botched" births also be related to the large amoutn of c-sections being done in the US, which may be directly related to the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance?

References: My wife and 60 minutes (amish info)

#4 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,724 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 02:06 PM

related to the astronomical cost of malpractice insurance?

The astronomical cost of malpractice insurance is due to the astronomical number of lawyers and the astronomical ability of juries to find blame where there is no blame and to suck from what they see as 'deep pockets', in the end increasing the costs for everyone. (to say nothing about my ability to slide off topic and produce an astronomical run-on sentence.)
Derfram
~~~~~~

#5 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams


  • Admin
  • 43,504 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:03:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 03:13 PM

You forgot to add the huge amount of people who decide to have frivolous or unfair (to be fair) lawsuits

#6 Ynse

Ynse
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 03:26 PM

Ok we have the ability to geneticaly alter our selfs, but this will not change the problem it only filters out the defect but does not repare the initial damage i spoke of.
Our gene pool is depleted and i dont think genetic engineering will help unless we learn how to create a brand new gene. The problem I think is far beyond medecine or genetics.
And yes Grinler a lot of mental defects do indeed only show a certain period after birth. but let me asure you that parents, especialy mothers know this way before doctors do.
I've worked for some time in a home for mentaly disabled / autistic children. What struck me the most is that there are increasingly more of these children at least on this side off the ocean. And that some defects are realy heavy.
Maybe that Jewish program isnt that bad after all, but then it had to be global to have any effect.
But then again we would only stop the effect and not the cause.
And Jqweed what did you mean by : "applying concepts derived from the nature of other animals, can be misleading". I always apply concepts derived from animal behaviour, because are we not animals ourselfs ?
I like to call it biological psychology (dont know if theres realy such a thing) Everything we as humans do, at least on the behaviour level, can be linked to other animals.
Even a smal and "lower"animal as an ant has the same basic set of behavioural rules. This applies, in my view, to all species of animals.
And yes Ddeerrff that is an astronomical run-on sentence, and i hope we dont slide of to much, though it would be interesting to see where this is going :thumbsup:

Edited by Ynse, 30 June 2005 - 03:30 PM.


#7 MrsGrinler

MrsGrinler

  • Members
  • 11 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 04:38 PM

From a geneticist's perspective- we estimate that all humans have approximately 5-7 genes that don't work properly. This is typically not an issue as long as you don't mate with someone who shares the same deleterious gene. This is why marriage among relatives is looked down upon, because it is more likely that they will share the same mutations.

Given the current size of the population of the world, it is unlikely that these genes will cause our ultimate extinction.

When we think about a biologic time line, if the theory you presented was true, it would take ages and ages to occur. If you believe in the theory of the big bang and natural selection, it has taken us years to evolve to this point. Biology moves at a very slow pace. In other words, we are unlikely to witness the end of the world in our generation...... Our destruction is more likely to be self-induced than genetically induced.

#8 efizzer

efizzer

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 04:49 PM

Grin-Man, you're married to a Geneticist? HOT!!! I married a teacher.....
Posted Image

We're going to make the merry-go-round go faster, so everyone needs to hang on tighter-just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.

#9 Grinler

Grinler

    Lawrence Abrams


  • Admin
  • 43,504 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Local time:03:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 04:52 PM

At least I got the edge when it comes to computers otherwise she would always make me look stupid :thumbsup:

#10 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 30 June 2005 - 05:11 PM

My point is that man is, and is not, a part of living nature; I think this distinction is one that should be made in this case, since his rational self can step outside, as it were, nature and modify it in a profound manner that the rest of living beings cannot. To simply place man in the category of animals without considering this, can lead to considerable confusion.

Indeed, it is man himself that defines nature---that makes nature exist--- just as only man can understand it. In a scientific, as opposed to an existential, sense, what we deem to be solidly nature is actually a series of scientific laws; these laws are constantly subject to being disproved, modified, or altered. So, any conclusion based on these laws and our current undersanding of the world, is subject to revision. The foreseeable future has shrunk from centuries to decades in a matter of 200 years.

It may be, additionally, that mankind considered as a species, can easily affort a greater percentage of abnormalities (lawyers, congressmen, and AM disk jockies, for example) than can the rest of the biological world, simply because its intellectual evolution easily outdistances its (strickly) biological evolution.

Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#11 Ynse

Ynse
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 01 July 2005 - 05:12 AM

Well hello Mrs Grinler. Did you pull a rabbit out of a hat. What are the odds ? astronomical i would say ! but im glad you joined, now at least a proffesional can shed some light on the subject. What is your field of expertize, and isnt there any locig in what i saw on t.v. (should have know beter then to trust the tube) If you say it is not in our life time wouldnt you agree that this is threatening human excistance in the long run, or is it just a load of bull bleep.
And John arent you afraid man will loose his feel with his world if we step out of it to much, our try to alter to much.
I see i will have to judge my words before i post them here :thumbsup:
But i will get the hang of it, give me change. Besides a geneticist are their any other jobs i should know of :flowers: Damn i wish i never dropt out.

#12 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 01 July 2005 - 10:23 AM

Almost from the very beginning of civilisation, humanity has sought to alter the world in which it lives. In the Fertile Crescent, for example, he built irrigation canals, and from the first step away from migratory hunter/gatherer existence, he built houses, cities, fields, and roads and then progressed to great walls and pyramids. This is surely a part of man's nature, and what he creates throws out the horizons in which he lives and the paths he takes.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#13 Lanscader

Lanscader

  • Members
  • 466 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Colorado, USA
  • Local time:01:09 AM

Posted 03 July 2005 - 10:13 AM

Along the lines of our destruction, I think that either: 1) our destructive abilities will become so great compared to other technologies that we will destroy ourselves, or 2) our ability to protect ourselves will become as great or greater than our destructive abilities so that when we do reach the point of self destruction, some people will be saved, and hopefully learn some valuable lessons.

I have not taken natural phenomenon into account, but these would factor into our preservation ability.

Edited by Lanscader, 03 July 2005 - 10:15 AM.

"Sir Lord Baron von Vader-han?" ~ Eddie Izzard

 


#14 Ynse

Ynse
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 31 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 05 July 2005 - 12:26 AM

I started out on the wrong foot here should have made a better case for my self, but ok i will learn to state my questions/remarks in a some what different way. I hope im not the bleepin dummy here.

John ! altering our world is not just a human thing, other animals do the same, although not on such a scale as we do. Is the alteration man makes in his world a product of his mind or just a complicated form of animal behaviour ? which he can not control.

#15 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:02:09 AM

Posted 05 July 2005 - 12:55 AM

His world and THE world are the same. True enough, beavers build dams and birds build nests; few of the animal productions though are permanent. We have to assume that animals do these things by instinct, just as ants build underground tunnels.
The difference is that human creations continually change and evolve, unlike ant hills, nests, and beaver dams. From the automobile to the rocket to the internet and computers, the changes humanity has made is significantly different from those of mere animals.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users