Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-05-2005, 07:03 PM   #46
Raging Lamb
?
 
Raging Lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 746


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
I believe this man died as a weaker subject of his race, in this case it is a mental weakness. Does decent with modification not teach that variation exists in nature and as we have adapted we have become stronger with weaker beings not surviving?
Not really. Here’s a general description of evolution and natural selection as I understand them:

DNA is a self replicating strand of nucleotides. It is a blueprint that codes for a vessel (in our case the human body) by which it (DNA) can propagate copies of itself. The mechanisms of replication result in variability in the subsequent copies of the replicated DNA. There are always more replicators than resources for replication. This creates ‘competition for resources’, and should the environment be such that one such variable strand of DNA will be better at making subsequent copies of itself, then naturally, more copies of this strand will be found in subsequent generations, and DNA varieties that were less apt at self-replication will now be less frequently found in future generations (and may someday even become extinct).
This has nothing to do with ‘strength’ or ‘weakness’, ‘better’ or ‘worse’, it has only to do with chance.
EDIT: In fact, environmental conditions can shif in such away, that this trend is reversed; such that those varieties that were previously unfavored and driven toward extinction, can now gain advantage and become the more prevalent form of DNA (or life).

This naturally occurring variability in the environment that results in one type of DNA being differentially able to replicate is called natural selection. The process of changing of the gene pool as a result of this natural selection is called evolution.

Evolution is the blind process of change. Natural selection is the blind force behind this change that acts on genes, and as a result, evolution is a genetic process (not a process that acts on a species as a whole).

Evolution is not a progressive process. Considering that 99% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct, we can confidently conclude that evolution does not result in betterment, or increased strength of any sort. When evolution occurs, it is merely a process of change, and nothing else.

In the case of the man who shot himself, it was the vessel (the man) that resulted in the termination of the organism (vessel + DNA), not the DNA itself or any properties of it.
While it is true that a man shooting himself in the head prevents the propagation of his genes; unless shooting himself is a genetically determined trait, it cannot be acted on by natural selection, and will therefore not result in evolutionary change.

How can you call suicide natural selection?
__________________
NWS Signature Removed

Last edited by Raging Lamb; 05-05-2005 at 07:42 PM.
Raging Lamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 07:37 PM   #47
Miguel
...Delt Smash
 
Miguel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dudebridge
Posts: 10,882
If you want to believe that the 'competition for resources' is won by chance than you can go on believing that. If you believe that the 'better' genes win then you have to determine what CAUSED one gene to be any better than another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
How can you call suicide natural selection?
Here's where your theory goes wrong.

It was not the act of suicide that constitutes natural selection but rather the act of that donor removing its ability to replicate. This man removing himself from the gene pool does not weaken mankind but strengthens it do to his ****ed up genes not being passed on and thus watering down future generations. Or how's this for a curveball, what if he had cancer as opposed to death by stupidity/suicide? would a cancer victim's children have a better or worse effect on future generations? According to your theory, anyone with cancer should be wiped out.

This is horribly wrong.

Also, try to apply neo-darwinism to behaviour and you will see that it doesn't fly.
__________________
Miguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 08:16 PM   #48
Raging Lamb
?
 
Raging Lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
If you want to believe that the 'competition for resources' is won by chance than you can go on believing that.
I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. I implied that variability can win the competition for resources, and how variability becomes advantageous is determined by chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
If you believe that the 'better' genes win then you have to determine what CAUSED one gene to be any better than another.
What causes one gene to do better than another is its properties that allow it to better reproduce in its given environment. However non of these properties are inherently 'better' properties of the gene itself. They only become advantagous at any given time if changes in the gene's environment allow them to become advantagous. Changes in the environment are very much up to chance.
In fact, environmental conditions can shift in such away, that a trend is reversed; those genetic properties that were previously unfavored in the gene pool and driven toward extinction, can now gain advantage and become the more prevalent form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
It was not the act of suicide that constitutes natural selection but rather the act of that donor removing its ability to replicate
I don't see how from an evolutionary perspective suicide is any different than "that donor removing its ability to replicate", but ok.
It's still not natural selection because as I mentioned before:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
While it is true that a man shooting himself in the head prevents the propagation of his genes; unless shooting himself is a genetically determined trait, it cannot be acted on by natural selection, and will therefore not result in evolutionary change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
This man removing himself from the gene pool does not weaken mankind but strengthens it do to his ****ed up genes not being passed on and thus watering down future generations
Again you're assuming that suicide has such strong genetic contributions, that 'suicide genes' can be passed on to future generations. That is not true. Offsprings of this man could have turned out to be great non-suicidal individuals. In fact, his own genes come from people before him, who could not have been like him if their genes were passed on to create this guy.

You're grossly over-estimating the genetic contributions to suicide, and severly underestimating environmental and situational factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
What if he had cancer as opposed to death by stupidity/suicide? would a cancer victim's children have a better or worse effect on future generations?
Probably neither, future generations would not be significantly different, since most cancer occurs well past the reproductive age, affecting people after their genes have been passed on, and this is in fact the case with many adults. Disorders occuring past the reproductive age do not get weeded out, because they occur after the individuals carrying them have had a chance to reproduce (i.e. contributing genes have already been passed on to future generations).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
According to your theory, anyone with cancer should be wiped out.
I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion from reading my post. Where did I state or imply that anyone with cancer should be wiped out?
__________________
NWS Signature Removed
Raging Lamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 08:53 PM   #49
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
I think what you are missing here is that perhaps his reaction to the whole event, and him causing suicide MAY have been a genetic problem.
The genetic problem may have been the over production of chemicals in his brain, whereas in other persons this would not have occured. Genes play a big role in everything and ones psychie does also revolve around there genetics.

For example how fast you learn, chemical balances and imbalances, all play crucial and critical roles in ones survival.

What Miquel is saying is correct. His suicide subsequently removes his genes from the gene pool. Will it effect man kind? Most likely not, therefore not making a large difference.

When living in great populations, slight genetic variations, unless being completely dominant have little to no effect on large populations.

However after all is said, this man that suicides will not reproduce If he did he would be creating children that may be more suseptible and prone to commiting suicide over other children because of these chemical imbalances in their brains...

Now remeber this is all going off whethere it was a genetic problem that caused the suicide.

Another thing to understand is that, because of his suicide, there is one less mouth to feed on this world, and perhaps one less family that will prosper/grow. This means that another family ma prosper in his place alowing that new family to multiply.
Eventually his genes, whatever they were, will be eliminated from society.

So in other words, Miquel is right. It all plays a role in the end. Whether is a bonus to society or a negative, no one will really know.
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 09:47 PM   #50
Raging Lamb
?
 
Raging Lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
I think what you are missing here is that perhaps his reaction to the whole event, and him causing suicide MAY have been a genetic problem.
Suicide would have to have a very strong genetic root for that to be true. And in that case, suicide would be a genetic trait, and it would be tracable in families, like say huntingtons disease. But it is not so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
The genetic problem may have been the over production of chemicals in his brain, whereas in other persons this would not have occured.
If that were the case, suicide would be much more prevalent, and extremely non-random, a condition with identifiable genetic traits. For example ADHD is highly heritable. Although there is not one gene that contributes to it, its occurence can be significantly attributed to heritability, and it can be traced through heritability. This is not the case with suicide. Again, you're over-estimating genetic contributions.

And don't forget that chemical balances and imbalances in the brain at any given moment are very highly dependent on non-genetic factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
Genes play a big role in everything and ones psychie does also revolve around there genetics.
Genetic contributions to personality have been estimated (by extensive research) to be at most 20%, the rest (at least 80%) being attributed to non genetic factors (see studies by James T. Bouchard).


Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
What Miquel is saying is correct. His suicide subsequently removes his genes from the gene pool....However after all is said, this man that suicides will not reproduce If he did he would be creating children that may be more suseptible and prone to commiting suicide over other children
This man is not the only person in possession of the genes in his body, he has relatives with whom he shares some genetic traits. You are again over-estimating genetic contribution. Did you know that even with a highly heritable disorder such as Schizophrenia, even with monozygotic twins (i.e genetically identical from birth), if one twin has the disorder, the chance of the other twin having it as well is only 50%?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
Another thing to understand is that, because of his suicide, there is one less mouth to feed on this world, and perhaps one less family that will prosper/grow. This means that another family ma prosper in his place alowing that new family to multiply
So? the world + (1 family) - (1 family) = the world. What's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex
Eventually his genes, whatever they were, will be eliminated from society.
Not true, again see discussion about genetic relatives. Even if it was true, my discussion with Miguel was about his use of the term 'natural selection' in this case, and how appropriate/correct it is. This is getting too off topic.
__________________
NWS Signature Removed
Raging Lamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 10:29 PM   #51
RoslynX5
1st Gear Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 10
I really hope it isn't genetic...Unfortunately someone close and dear to me committed suicide and there is no solid explanation. He was depressed and no one really understood why. He had a wife, children and grandchildren that loved him dearly but it wasn't enough to keep him here. I believe it is a selfish act that destroys the family who loved them...10 years have gone by and thankfully no one has followed his footsteps...but its not easy to deal with
RoslynX5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 10:32 PM   #52
Raging Lamb
?
 
Raging Lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoslynX5
I really hope it isn't genetic...Unfortunately someone close and dear to me committed suicide and there is no solid explanation. He was depressed and no one really understood why. He had a wife, children and grandchildren that loved him dearly but it wasn't enough to keep him here. I believe it is a selfish act that destroys the family who loved them...10 years have gone by and thankfully no one has followed his footsteps...but its not easy to deal with
I'm very very sorry to hear about your loss.
__________________
NWS Signature Removed
Raging Lamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 10:37 PM   #53
mkgino
6th Gear Member
 
mkgino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,686
OK this thread sucks now
__________________
mkgino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 10:39 PM   #54
RoslynX5
1st Gear Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 10
Thank you raging lamb...
RoslynX5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 10:58 PM   #55
Miguel
...Delt Smash
 
Miguel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dudebridge
Posts: 10,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
I don't believe that, and I didn't say that. I implied that variability can win the competition for resources, and how variability becomes advantageous is determined by chance.
if variability becomes advantages by chance then how does that advantage become a sustainable advantagous leading to evolution. I believe you are putting 'chance' on a high horse that is easily overpowered by the ability to learn and adapt. Learning and adaptation occur both in response to environmental and situational stimuli AS WELL as chance. However to leave chance as the single alpha omega of evolution is impossible.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
What causes one gene to do better than another is its properties that allow it to better reproduce in its given environment. However non of these properties are inherently 'better' properties of the gene itself. They only become advantagous at any given time if changes in the gene's environment allow them to become advantagous. Changes in the environment are very much up to chance.
In fact, environmental conditions can shift in such away, that a trend is reversed; those genetic properties that were previously unfavored in the gene pool and driven toward extinction, can now gain advantage and become the more prevalent form.
to use the term 'better' would be incorrect as you assume that all reproducing genes are advantageous. A disease for example would qualify as being advantageous due to it's ability to reproduce within it's environment. The problem here is that you assume that A = B and B = C however A =/= C so the theory is inheritantly flawed. Also, basing evolution on gene adaptation to it's surroundings itself is proposterous since it doesn't account for behavioural traits in humans. There is no environmental advantage in being a better singer or a better artist yet these skills are learned and passed from generation to generation which is an evolution within itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
I don't see how from an evolutionary perspective suicide is any different than "that donor removing its ability to replicate", but ok.
It's still not natural selection because as I mentioned before:

Again you're assuming that suicide has such strong genetic contributions, that 'suicide genes' can be passed on to future generations. That is not true. Offsprings of this man could have turned out to be great non-suicidal individuals. In fact, his own genes come from people before him, who could not have been like him if their genes were passed on to create this guy.

You're grossly over-estimating the genetic contributions to suicide, and severly underestimating environmental and situational factors.
while true, in order for your statement to stand true it would have to be present in 100% of the offspring of suicidal people. Although suicide is not a genetic trait, the syptoms linked with it are. Diseases that have been linked to suicidal people such as manic depression, learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. are all genetic traits that can be handed down to offspring (through genes AND through Environmental stimuli and increase a person's chances of being mentally unstable in the future. So indirectly, a suicidal person's ability to procreate can weaken the future as much as it can benefit it (say the offspring becomes a nobel prize winner...)

So in this scenerio, the better of 2 evils is up for debate...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raging Lamb
Probably neither, future generations would not be significantly different, since most cancer occurs well past the reproductive age, affecting people after their genes have been passed on, and this is in fact the case with many adults. Disorders occuring past the reproductive age do not get weeded out, because they occur after the individuals carrying them have had a chance to reproduce (i.e. contributing genes have already been passed on to future generations).

I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion from reading my post. Where did I state or imply that anyone with cancer should be wiped out?
And a person's susceptibility to cancer is passed on before or after a certain age? you focus on the disease instead of the ability to contract the disease which IS passed on to future generations and which is why doctors keep information on bloodlines. If what you are implying were true, disease would have been eradicated after 1 generation.

Based on your theory that suicide is not natural selection (thus implying that the diseases that lead a person to be "suicidal" are not genetically passed on but rather solely based on adaptations to environment it would be acceptable to conclude that cancer victims are reactions to an environment and their elimination would eradicate the environment in which they reproduce.

thus eliminating cancer.
__________________

Last edited by Miguel; 05-05-2005 at 11:01 PM.
Miguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 11:01 PM   #56
WhadUpp
BIG BIG WHEELS
 
WhadUpp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,417
thats one tough goat of an explanation
WhadUpp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 11:12 PM   #57
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
"Genetic contributions to personality have been estimated (by extensive research) to be at most 20%, the rest (at least 80%) being attributed to non genetic factors (see studies by James T. Bouchard).
"


20 percent is fairly high percentage.



This man is not the only person in possession of the genes in his body, he has relatives with whom he shares some genetic traits. You are again over-estimating genetic contribution. Did you know that even with a highly heritable disorder such as Schizophrenia, even with monozygotic twins (i.e genetically identical from birth), if one twin has the disorder, the chance of the other twin having it as well is only 50%?


this man is the only man that posses his genes.. his relatives will have similar genes but not his exact ones.

the chance of the other twin having it as well is only 50%

50% is a very high probability.



If that were the case, suicide would be much more prevalent, and extremely non-random, a condition with identifiable genetic traits. For example ADHD is highly heritable. Although there is not one gene that contributes to it, its occurence can be significantly attributed to heritability, and it can be traced through heritability. This is not the case with suicide. Again, you're over-estimating genetic contributions.


maybe you dont know how many suicides happen per day in North America... It is said that in Toronto alone it is something like 10 to 20 people per day.. Thats alot of people if you ask me.

And don't forget that chemical balances and imbalances in the brain at any given moment are very highly dependent on non-genetic factors.

Not entirely true. As most hormones in your body are created by cells in your body that read out RNA strands then go about creating these hormones it is VERY dependant on your genes. Infact, everything in your body, its iternal clock, if you will, is all set in your genes. Something takes place because your DNA begins the task.

I think you are not putting enough stress on DNA and Genes my friend. You said several times that we are over stressing how genes play a role in all of it... But your genes are in your DNA and everything in your body is created by DNA... DNA is your genes, and you brain and other organs, which are created by your DNA.. So really everything is conected and relies on each other. So I dont see you can say your chemical balance in your brain is not related to your genes, because clearly organs and other cells create these chemicals anyway at certian times and only behave because your DNA has mapped it out for the hormones to be released at certain times..


Therefore someone that may be deficient in releasing hormone x, at time period T, may be more suseptible to do something illogical, then a person who has the right ammount of hormone x at the right time period.




I understand what you are getting at, but still fail to see how it cannot be a genetic trait.. We still haven't figured out how all our genes work and how they intriquitly connect everything.
Infact there are many many years of reasearch ahead until we can be sure of all of this..



anyway this interesting!!! tell me more.

Last edited by sirex; 05-05-2005 at 11:18 PM.
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 11:30 PM   #58
Miguel
...Delt Smash
 
Miguel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Dudebridge
Posts: 10,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhadUpp
thats one tough goat of an explanation
here.. I'll sum it up.

I say: Suicide is natural selection

He says: No its not because naturally occurring variability in the environment that results in one type of DNA being differentially able to replicate is called natural selection, and suicide doesn't fit that definition.

MKGino says: This Thread sucks.

Sirex says: bla bla bla

I say: It IS natural selection because natural selection preaches that in an environment that causes one variable to win over another in a competition for resources that variable will thrive and reproduce. This suicide is an example of a variable (the suicidal man) in an environment (the world?) that can no longer reproduce (note*that doesn't mean that he wasn't PREVIOUSLY able to do so) because he has lost a competition for resources (that bitch in the elevator).
__________________
Miguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 11:31 PM   #59
WhadUpp
BIG BIG WHEELS
 
WhadUpp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: here and there
Posts: 4,417
Got it, and I say I need to do more reading on this subject. That tough goat aka raging lamb puts out some compelling stuff but your arguments I most agree with Miguel.

Last edited by WhadUpp; 05-05-2005 at 11:34 PM.
WhadUpp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2005, 11:50 PM   #60
Raging Lamb
?
 
Raging Lamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miguel
here.. I'll sum it up.

I say: Suicide is natural selection

He says: No its not because naturally occurring variability in the environment that results in one type of DNA being differentially able to replicate is called natural selection, and suicide doesn't fit that definition.

MKGino says: This Thread sucks.

Sirex says: bla bla bla

I say: It IS natural selection because natural selection preaches that in an environment that causes one variable to win over another in a competition for resources that variable will thrive and reproduce. This suicide is an example of a variable (the suicidal man) in an environment (the world?) that can no longer reproduce (note*that doesn't mean that he wasn't PREVIOUSLY able to do so) because he has lost a competition for resources (that bitch in the elevator).
lol good summery, now before I post another quote by quote, I would like to add, all I am saying is:

a variable as you mention, can only be acted on by natural selection and therefore undergo evolution, if it is genetically transmittable. I do not think suicide is genetically transmittable. And by the way, a trait cannot be natural selection, I don't know if you were arguing that or sirex, but anyhow back to the quote by quote and then sleep.
__________________
NWS Signature Removed
Raging Lamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015