racial height differences poll

[Trausti]

You seem stuck on the creationist notion of irreducible complexity. Just because an anatomical feature or biological function changes little over time doesn't mean it's "resistant to change." It just means that there hasn't been significant selective pressure on that anatomy or function. But where there is, natural selection can be quick, e.g., lactose tolerance, sickle-cell trait.

Intense natural selection caused a rapid morphological transition in a living marine snail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC386617/

This displays a real inability to comprehend what I'm saying and what the evidence shows. Some things change and other things resist change for millions of years. That is evolution.

How has the skeletal structure of the hand changed in the last 1.8 million years?

Please be specific.

What selective pressures have been applied to the hand in that time? If you can identify significant selective pressures, and no appreciable change due to those pressures, maybe you got something. Otherwise, you might feel more comfortable here: http://www.discovery.org/

This is hand waving.

Tell me about all the changes over the last 1.87 million years or admit that some things resist change.

Michael Behe, is that you?

 

[untermensche]

You seem stuck on the creationist notion of irreducible complexity. Just because an anatomical feature or biological function changes little over time doesn't mean it's "resistant to change." It just means that there hasn't been significant selective pressure on that anatomy or function. But where there is, natural selection can be quick, e.g., lactose tolerance, sickle-cell trait.

Intense natural selection caused a rapid morphological transition in a living marine snail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC386617/

This displays a real inability to comprehend what I'm saying and what the evidence shows. Some things change and other things resist change for millions of years. That is evolution.

How has the skeletal structure of the hand changed in the last 1.8 million years?

Please be specific.

What selective pressures have been applied to the hand in that time? If you can identify significant selective pressures, and no appreciable change due to those pressures, maybe you got something. Otherwise, you might feel more comfortable here: http://www.discovery.org/

This is hand waving.

Tell me about all the changes over the last 1.87 million years or admit that some things resist change.

Michael Behe, is that you?

Evasion.

But the facts are clear. Evolution is about 2 things. Change and preservation. It is not merely a process of change.

And it is as clear as a >1.87 million year old hand.

This has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. That is a strawman. Of course all structures arise through evolution but when some things arise they resist change more than others.

 

[Trausti]

You seem stuck on the creationist notion of irreducible complexity. Just because an anatomical feature or biological function changes little over time doesn't mean it's "resistant to change." It just means that there hasn't been significant selective pressure on that anatomy or function. But where there is, natural selection can be quick, e.g., lactose tolerance, sickle-cell trait.

Intense natural selection caused a rapid morphological transition in a living marine snail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC386617/

This displays a real inability to comprehend what I'm saying and what the evidence shows. Some things change and other things resist change for millions of years. That is evolution.

How has the skeletal structure of the hand changed in the last 1.8 million years?

Please be specific.

What selective pressures have been applied to the hand in that time? If you can identify significant selective pressures, and no appreciable change due to those pressures, maybe you got something. Otherwise, you might feel more comfortable here: http://www.discovery.org/

This is hand waving.

Tell me about all the changes over the last 1.87 million years or admit that some things resist change.

Michael Behe, is that you?

Evasion.

But the facts are clear. Evolution is about 2 things. Change and preservation. It is not merely a process of change.

And it is as clear as a >1.87 million year old hand.

This has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. That is a strawman. Of course all structures arise through evolution but when some things arise they resist change more than others.

Would the human hand resist change if significant selective pressures were applied? Yes or no? You're fixated on the hand, ignoring the forest for the trees.

 

[untermensche]

Would the human hand resist change if significant selective pressures were applied? Yes or no? You're fixated on the hand, ignoring the forest for the trees.

It hasn't changed in >1.87 million years.

What pressures do you think it has missed in that time?

You are hand waving and evading.

Some things resist change.

You won't even believe your eyes so I suppose it's easy to evade my words.

 

[Trausti]

Would the human hand resist change if significant selective pressures were applied? Yes or no? You're fixated on the hand, ignoring the forest for the trees.

It hasn't changed in >1.87 million years.

What pressures do you think it has missed in that time?

You are hand waving and evading.

Some things resist change.

You won't even believe your eyes so I suppose it's easy to evade my words.

Human hemoglobin. That has been "resistant to change" for, perhaps, millions of years. Indeed, there is a very slight difference between human and gorilla hemoglobin. Now that's resistant! But add a selective pressure, for example, Malaria, and this "system," which appears "resistant to change," changes. But it only changes for those human populations where the presence of Malaria applies this selective pressure. Western Europeans don't have sickle-cell trait. Ditto, East Asians. Ditto, Amerindians.

So, again, what selective pressures are there on the human hand?

 

[untermensche]

It hasn't changed in >1.87 million years.

What pressures do you think it has missed in that time?

You are hand waving and evading.

Some things resist change.

You won't even believe your eyes so I suppose it's easy to evade my words.

Human hemoglobin. That has been "resistant to change" for, perhaps, millions of years. Indeed, there is a very slight difference between human and gorilla hemoglobin. Now that's resistant! But add a selective pressure, for example, Malaria, and this "system," which appears "resistant to change," changes. But it only changes for those human populations where the presence of Malaria applies this selective pressure. Western Europeans don't have sickle-cell trait. Ditto, East Asians. Ditto, Amerindians.

So, again, what selective pressures are there on the human hand?

You are making my point.

Despite pressures like malaria that can cause a change to hemoglobin the hemoglobin molecules have resisted pressures like these over long periods of time.

 

[Trausti]

Human hemoglobin. That has been "resistant to change" for, perhaps, millions of years. Indeed, there is a very slight difference between human and gorilla hemoglobin. Now that's resistant! But add a selective pressure, for example, Malaria, and this "system," which appears "resistant to change," changes. But it only changes for those human populations where the presence of Malaria applies this selective pressure. Western Europeans don't have sickle-cell trait. Ditto, East Asians. Ditto, Amerindians.

So, again, what selective pressures are there on the human hand?

You are making my point.

Despite pressures like malaria that can cause a change to hemoglobin the hemoglobin molecules have resisted these pressures over long periods of time.

Wut? Not in those populations subjected to Malaria. Do you know what sickle-cell trait is? Why do people of sub-Saharan ancestry have it but those with Northern European ancestry do not?

 

[Trausti]

 Ectodysplasin_A_receptor#East_Asian_characteristics

A derived G-allele point mutation (SNP) with pleiotropic effects in EDAR, 370A or rs3827760, found in most modern East Asians and Native Americans but not common in African or European populations, is thought to be one of the key genes responsible for a number of differences between these populations, including the thicker hair, more numerous sweat glands, smaller breasts, and dentition characteristic of East Asians.[7]

So the human embryonic "system" is apparently not resistant to change - at least in East Asians. But if you excluded East Asians, then you might think this "system" was resistant to change. Funny how selective pressures and genetic shift work.

 

[Trausti]

 High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans

In 2010, for the first time, the genes responsible for the unique adaptive traits were identified following genome sequences of 50 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese from Beijing.

Amazing what selective pressures and genetic shift can to do "systems."

 

[untermensche]

You are making my point.

Despite pressures like malaria that can cause a change to hemoglobin the hemoglobin molecules have resisted these pressures over long periods of time.

Wut? Not in those populations subjected to Malaria. Do you know what sickle-cell trait is? Why do people of sub-Saharan ancestry have it but those with Northern European ancestry do not?

You are the one that said hemoglobin has not changed in millions of years.

We see that it can be changed by pressure in some individuals.

But in the long run it resists change. You are making my point for me and don't even know it.

Or are you suggesting that malaria was somehow the first pressure that hemoglobin encountered?

 

[Trausti]

Wut? Not in those populations subjected to Malaria. Do you know what sickle-cell trait is? Why do people of sub-Saharan ancestry have it but those with Northern European ancestry do not?

You are the one that said hemoglobin has not changed in millions of years.

We see that it can be changed by pressure in some individuals.

But in the long run it resists change. You are making my point for me and don't even know it.

Or are you suggesting that malaria was somehow the first pressure that hemoglobin encountered?

Your "resists change" is just bizarre. If change is necessary to survive a geographical or cultural environment, then resistance to that change is genetic death.

 

[untermensche]

 High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans

In 2010, for the first time, the genes responsible for the unique adaptive traits were identified following genome sequences of 50 Tibetans and 40 Han Chinese from Beijing.

Amazing what selective pressures and genetic shift can to do "systems."

Some things can change.

Look at dogs.

Despite all their changes they all have the same nervous system, the same skeletal system, the same immune system, the same visual and auditory systems.

You can't evade my point by showing that some things can change.

Because my point is: some things change and some things resist change.

 

[untermensche]

You are the one that said hemoglobin has not changed in millions of years.

We see that it can be changed by pressure in some individuals.

But in the long run it resists change. You are making my point for me and don't even know it.

Or are you suggesting that malaria was somehow the first pressure that hemoglobin encountered?

Your "resists change" is just bizarre. If change is necessary to survive a geographical or cultural environment, then resistance to that change is genetic death.

Cognitive dissonance.

Resistance to change is as simple a concept as can be conceived.

It means the thing does not change over long periods of time, like millions of years.

And over periods of time like that many many pressures have been encountered. There is no way to avoid them.

 

[Trausti]

 High-altitude_adaptation_in_humans



Amazing what selective pressures and genetic shift can to do "systems."

Some things can change.

Look at dogs.

Despite all their changes they all have the same nervous system, the same skeletal system, the same immune system, the same visual and auditory systems.

You can't evade my point by showing that some things can change.

Because my point is: some things change and some things resist change.

Again, if an organism resists selective pressures, that organism will have no progeny.

 

[Trausti]

Your "resists change" is just bizarre. If change is necessary to survive a geographical or cultural environment, then resistance to that change is genetic death.

Cognitive dissonance.

Resistance to change is as simple a concept as can be conceived.

It means the thing does not change over long periods of time, like millions of years.

And over periods of time like that many many pressures have been encountered. There is no way to avoid them.

If the geographical or cultural environment favors a trait or behavior, and an organism does not exhibit that trait or behavior, the organism's chance of survival - and chance of survival of its off spring - are low. Do you dispute that?

 

[untermensche]

Some things can change.

Look at dogs.

Despite all their changes they all have the same nervous system, the same skeletal system, the same immune system, the same visual and auditory systems.

You can't evade my point by showing that some things can change.

Because my point is: some things change and some things resist change.

Again, if an organism resists selective pressures, that organism will have no progeny.

That is nonsense.

An organism will most likely have reproductive success if it inherits the traits that gave it's parents reproductive success.

This is a process of preservation.

 

[untermensche]

Cognitive dissonance.

Resistance to change is as simple a concept as can be conceived.

It means the thing does not change over long periods of time, like millions of years.

And over periods of time like that many many pressures have been encountered. There is no way to avoid them.

If the geographical or cultural environment favors a trait or behavior, and an organism does not exhibit that trait or behavior, the organism's chance of survival - and chance of survival of its off spring - are low. Do you dispute that?

The issue is about resistance to change.

It is clearly seen in the hand and in hemoglobin and in many other things.

Obviously the retention of some features grants a reproductive advantage. Also a survival advantage.

In many environments it is best to retain vision if an animal wants to survive. Thus the visual system has resisted change over millions of years.

And of course when local environments change there will be some changes to organisms.

But within that change some things will resist change.

 

[Trausti]

Again, if an organism resists selective pressures, that organism will have no progeny.

That is nonsense.

An organism will most likely have reproductive success if it inherits the traits that gave it's parents reproductive success.

This is a process of preservation.

I state it simply thus: any biological "system" is subject to change if selective pressures are applied. If no significant selective pressure impose on a "system," then the apparent "resistance" to change is an observation of the absence of significant selective pressure, not that the "system" is "resistant to change." Add in selective pressures - or genetic shift - and the "system" will most readily change or the organism will go extinct.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, if an organism resists selective pressures, that organism will have no progeny.

That is nonsense.

An organism will most likely have reproductive success if it inherits the traits that gave it's parents reproductive success.

This is a process of preservation.

In other words, you are saying that evolution is wrong about natural selection, right? You maintain that changing environmental pressures (and environment does constantly change) is irrelevant as to the what traits change or are retained, right?

Again thanks. you are certainly entertaining.

 

[ronburgundy]

...and the human cognitive "system" is also a system, and so has not evolved substantially in the past two million years. Right?

Only a very stupid individual would draw that conclusion.

The point is: systems are not end traits and they do not change in the same manner that end traits change.

A point you are clearly incapable of even addressing.

Evolution is not only a process of change but it is also a process of preservation of the things that grant survival and reproductive success.

Although there are some very stupid people who think evolution is only a process of change.

I am ignorant about a great many things. The difference is that I am aware of this ignorance, and acknowledge it.

Oh the irony. Thanks for the laugh.

However, the have very good reasons to think that our cognitive "system" has indeed evolved "much" in "millions of years".

What evidence is that?

Seriously? You would like evidence that our cognitive system has evolved "much" in the past few million years, in the context of an argument that it could not possibly have evolved subtle differences in the past few tens of thousands of years? Wow. Are you sure that you are not a creationist? Well, three million years ago our ancestors were similar to Australopithecus afarensis (do you need evidence for that?), with a cranial capacity of about 450 ml: less than one third the mean for modern humans, give or take a little (let me know if you need evidence for that). That seems to me pretty good evidence that our cognition has evolved "much" since then. Yes, I know that brain size is not cognition, but it is certainly related. The relationship between the size of the brain overall, and the size of specific parts of the brain, with "intelligence" is complex, but there is no doubt that these sizes matter (even if size is only an "end trait", whatever that is).

This is your evidence? Size if cranial cavity?

So according to your ignorance most women have less cognitive capacity than most men. A joke.

What have you published?

Why, exactly? Would it make my arguments any better or worse? I'll tell you what: if you really think that it is important then you list your publications on evolutionary biology, then I will list mine. If you don't think that it is important, then why bring it up?

As I thought. You really have no capacity to add or subtract anything here. You have no grasp of the material.

But the point remains despite your lack of education to deal with it.

Evolution is as much about preservation as it is about change.

And systems, like the cognitive system, or the visual system, or even a much less complex system, the hand, resist evolutionary change. I even gave you a picture to illustrate this as much as it can be illustrated.

There is no evidence the language capacity differs at all in any group of humans. And therefore there is no reason to think the language capacity has evolved since humans somehow acquired it. Which was probably a single mutation in a single individual, but that is speculation.

And if the language capacity has not evolved it is likely that much of the cognitive system also resists change as well.

And no evidence exists that humans have different cognitive systems. They all have the same system with minor variations despite the efforts of some to exaggerate those variations.

As has been explained to you ad-nauseum, general intelligence is NOT "the cognitive system" but rather one of countless byproducts of that system. As is generally true of complex dynamic system, tiny changes to one part of the system can greatly alter a particular outcome, and often a given difference in outcome can be produced by changes to any one of countless parts of the system.

Using your hand analogy, intelligence is not the complex system of the hand, but more analogous to the mass of the hand, which can differ due to small differences in the mass of any one of the components of the hand. It is also analogous to running speed, which, like intelligence, is not a physical system but one by-product of complex interacting systems of respiration, circulation, muscle and bone structure. Despite people have largely similar "systems" at the same vague and abstract level at which you claim people fave the same "cognitive system", people still vary greatly in their running speed and as every Olympics shows beyond doubt most of that variance is genetically determined.

Behavioral byproducts of complex physical systems have countless features of the physical system that can give rise to variance in the behavior, with each feature of the system often having multiple genetic markers that impact it. Thus, there are countless opportunities for genetic variance to wind up contributing to variance in such behavioral byproducts, making genetic influence on them very likely.