|
Classism is Inenvitable
(I don't know if this belongs in Politics or SMP. Iron, it's your call.)
I have been watching the Planet Earth series on Discovery and have noticed something very obvious about evolution: all of it, in every species, comes about through intensely choosy sexual selection. It does not matter how many natural resources there are, females are always extremely selective when it comes to finding a mate. The logic behind it is usually very apparent. Male rams in high mountains compete fiercely with one another on dangerous cliffs (sometimes resulting in death for the losers). The females are attracted to the winner, who goes on to pass his genes, which are the fittest for survival in a harsh environment with scarce resources. This is, of course, an absolute evolutionary necessity; without a simple behavioral norm to select the fittest genes, a species would quickly go extinct in harsh environments. But what if resources were not so scarce and the environment were very accomodating? If each member had all the material comforts they wanted, would there be any purpose to sexual selection? Would females simply mate with whomever was there at the time? Zoology suggests otherwise. Consider the bird of paradise from the tropics of Papua New Guinea. http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4...birds_puff.jpg Dwelling in the lush rainforests where temperatures are comfortable and food is abundant, this bird has its survival cut out for it much moreso than animals in harsher environments. Evolution has shaped it (like many tropical animals) on the basis of appearance moreso than athletic fitness. Its flamboyant appearance seems very impractical for survival in most parts of the world, but in its home it is perfectly suited to its environment. Mating rituals for such animals are quite different. The male bird of paradise will spend days or even weeks preparing a small clearing on the forest floor as an inviting "bachelor pad" to attract the females. After meticulously feng shui-ing his desired spot, the male waits for a female to wander by, at which point he attempts to impress her with a wild dance, flaunting its very ornamental body wildly. The male is usually unsuccessful, however, as the female is very selective and will only mate with the most attractive male who has the nicest house. No mountain ram could ever afford to spend so much time preparing a "bachelor pad" for prospective females, yet females of both species are just as selective even though the bird of paradise, from an economic perspective, is much wealthier. It is selective proxies like these that give rise to classes in the world. Selective tendencies result in pecking orders of many varieties in the animal world. Carnivorous animals divide themselves into alphas and omegas. Insects are assigned specific roles within the colonies. And in the shark world, ovoviparious fetuses feed on their unborn siblings in utero, ensuring that the fittest are the ones to survive and pass on their genes. Humans are, of course, no exception. The females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world. The time they spend searching for "Mr. Right" often exceeds the life expectancies of most mammalian species in the wild...and they do so from a much, much larger pool of potential mates. It needs no mentioning that economic success is one of the most important criteria to most human females. A loser in a studio apartment with a minimum wage job is going to have a much more difficult time mating with a desirable female than a man with a Mercedes and a Rolex, even if they are identical in appearance. The pertinent characteristics of the successful male are admired and envied by the less successful males, who try to emulate him and achieve his success (which happens to take place on the economic sphere in civilized human society). Unconsiously, divional hierarchies between rich and poor manifest, and the infamous "class struggle" is born. But is it reasonable to think that artificially-engineered economic equality would end classism? This, to me, makes no sense. Let us assume that communism works. A central state provides each member of society with equal rations of resources. Each person recieves identical compensation for their labor (which, conveniently, is equally laborious across the board). No person does, should or can "move up in the world." Possibly catastropic economic reprocussions ignored, do all people treat each other as equals in this society? Before you answer this question, realize that I have very closely described the settings of American schoolchildren. From puberty until the graduation of high school (and extending into college), American teenagers are largely identical economically in their respective settings. They have very meager, if any, incomes, and most of their resources are provided for automatically. Lacking job skills at this point in their lives, their jobs are typically minimum wage/entry level type trades that are embarrassing to adults, but acceptable for teenagers. Females at this age tend to care very little about the vocation of potential mates in their selective processes (in fact the prom king of my high school pumped gas for extra money in the summer). Does this imply that females are not selective at all? No. They simply exercise selection across the most relevant relative proxy. Economic status may be controlled but appearances and athletic prowesses are not. Accordingly, the goalposts are in entirely different areas and rigid hierarchies are formed on entirely different grounds. The alpha jocks intimidate the omega nerds. Such settings are no less class-based than the later "real world," where luckily many of the former omega males' characteristics suddenly become advantageous. Human beings are not equal. Find me any two human males and I will show you hundreds of distinguishable characteristics that uniquely identify them. Variance and the selection that occurs within it is the underlying drive of all animal life. Discriminatory, internalized selection quite literally shaped the environment, the frontal cortex, and civilization. We are not equal, and we should be damn happy about that; for if we were, we would all be dead. Cliff Notes: Humans, being animals, are shaped to be as selective in their sexual decisions are environmental conditions allow. Sexual/natural selection forms the basis of classism in society. Differences in economic status is not the cause of classism, it is simply one of the most important proxies for selection in our world. Isolate it, and the goalposts will shift, forming classes along lines that are much less apparent to us today. This is neither right nor wrong, it is just a simple fact of being animal. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
Just as the UBI can equalize incomes, the UBV can equalize sex.
|
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
I enjoyed your post. Very well argued and well written.
A quibble: I think using kids in school as a parallel to the "real world" presents some problems, mainly because kids will be influenced by the behavior of their parents, and their parents will be influenced by their status and situation in the "real world", so I don't think you can really assert that the school is an isolated egalitarian society in any meaningful way. Confident parents have confident kids. Rich parents are more likely to be confident. Etcetera etcetera. There are some interesting trends with the alpha/omega stuff, but I don't think it stands up that well. A nit: Inevitable |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world. [/ QUOTE ] HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper http://www.thegossipfix.com/wp-conte...1/kfedpimp.jpg |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
Birth control.
|
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
I loved that crazy bird on the show...
|
Re: Classism is Inevitable
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait.
There may never be such an environment though. There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female.
Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this? Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait. [/ QUOTE ] Uh, no? That's the point of sexual selection. It produces extreme and even bizarre results despite the pressures of natural selection. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait. There may never be such an environment though. There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits. [/ QUOTE ] Apparently this is wrong, and actually heading the opposite direction. Except for genes coding for faster metabolisms and less hair, I'm afraid I'm at a loss to explain which traits are being selected... |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female. Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this? Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage. [/ QUOTE ] But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait. There may never be such an environment though. There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection? I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this? |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why you would think this. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Copernicus Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 06/13/03 Posts: 4761 [/ QUOTE ] Might explain it... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female. Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this? Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage. [/ QUOTE ] But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding. [/ QUOTE ] Youre understanding fine. Its just two different types of sexual selection...this is an example of intrasexual selection where males are competing with each other for access to the most females. Intersexual selection has the female of the species selecting between those that have gotten access. In the first the female is passive and doesnt drive the selection process (eg the development of colorful plumage doesnt require a female preference for a particular plumage, access is gained by being more noticeable). In intersexual selection it is the specific female preferences that select out the most desired traits. In the context of classism in a purely homogenous and abundant society there are no distinguishable characteristics for intrasexual competition, and if there are also no means for the females to distinguish between males for intersexual selection, classism will fade since it is a consequence of sexual selectione which would have no mechanism to operate. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world. [/ QUOTE ] HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper http://www.thegossipfix.com/wp-conte...1/kfedpimp.jpg [/ QUOTE ] Yet stupid people continue to breed at higher rates. Leave it to our govt to take from the genetic superiors to give to the Jerry Springer guests....WTF!, the future of the human race is at stake. I SAY LET MOTHER NATURE THIN THE HUMAN HERD OUT AS SHE SEES FIT. tommorrow on springer..... 27 men...who is the father? (you can bet that there are 15 or less jobs held by the 27 men, most have sub 100 IQs, and they were all dumb enuff to drill some 300+ pound cumdumpster of a thing that resembles a woman, only hairier) not quite my definition of selective breeding. Sounds more like the anaconda breeding ball I saw on discovery channel. jerrry!jerrrry!jerrrrrrry! |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait. There may never be such an environment though. There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection? I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this? [/ QUOTE ] No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. When all males are capable of providing for their offspring (say because technology provides all of the essentials) there is no natural selection driving the process. Without natural selection favoring certain characteristics (ie more characteristics survive the gene pool) intersexual selection will also fade because the percentage of males in the population that have any particular favored characteristic becomes too low....3 billion females cant all breed with the 10 million males who happen to retain a favored characteristic....., limiting intersexual selection. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] he females of our species are, in fact, the most intensely selective breeders anywhere in the animal world. [/ QUOTE ] HMMMMMMMMMMMM theory needs work young grasshopper http://www.thegossipfix.com/wp-conte...1/kfedpimp.jpg [/ QUOTE ] Yet stupid people continue to breed at higher rates. Leave it to our govt to take from the genetic superiors to give to the Jerry Springer guests....WTF!, the future of the human race is at stake. I SAY LET MOTHER NATURE THIN THE HUMAN HERD OUT AS SHE SEES FIT. tommorrow on springer..... 27 men...who is the father? (you can bet that there are 15 or less jobs held by the 27 men, most have sub 100 IQs, and they were all dumb enuff to drill some 300+ pound cumdumpster of a thing that resembles a woman, only hairier) not quite my definition of selective breeding. Sounds more like the anaconda breeding ball I saw on discovery channel. jerrry!jerrrry!jerrrrrrry! [/ QUOTE ] Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can. [/ QUOTE ] But if stupid people didnt have sufficient wherewithall to survive (ie they couldnt compete for a scarce resource that requires intellectual capacity) then they would be selected out of the species. No more equally stupids to breed with each other. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If an environment remains abundant in resources and survival of the species is no longer an issue for long enough then classism wont be favored by natural selection and will eventually fade as a trait. There may never be such an environment though. There have been threads in SMP about whether or not humans will continue to evolve, and this is a similar issue. I believe that technology has replaced evolution for mankind in general and there will be no major emergence of selective traits. [/ QUOTE ] I don't understand why you would think this. I have no biology background, but where there is competition, won't there always be selection? Are you contesting that it isn't "natural" because it has to do with human social constructions like wealth? Seems entirely semantic. We've always had constructions like that, and haven't they always been a tool of natural selection? I mean if wealth is selected for (and how could you argue that it isn't?) won't any genes that enhance the ability to procure wealth be selected for as well? Are you arguing that no genes can do this? [/ QUOTE ] No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. When all males are capable of providing for their offspring (say because technology provides all of the essentials) there is no natural selection driving the process. Without natural selection favoring certain characteristics (ie more characteristics survive the gene pool) intersexual selection will also fade because the percentage of males in the population that have any particular favored characteristic becomes too low....3 billion females cant all breed with the 10 million males who happen to retain a favored characteristic....., limiting intersexual selection. [/ QUOTE ] Okay, I think I see what you're saying. If there is no more scarcity of essentials like food, there will no longer be enough competition to drive natural selection? This seems to be contradicted by the incredible premium women in postindustrial societies place on superfluous wealth. A woman does not, in any meaningful way, risk her or her kids starving or going without shelter when she marries a guy who makes 50k a year. Then why is she MUCH more attracted to the guy who makes a million a year? In this example, necessity does not drive the woman's choice, yet if the higher earner has any genes that enhance his ability to procure wealth, won't those genes be naturally selected for? Or are you saying that we're not there yet, but will be in the future when the competitive instinct is socialized out of us or something like that? |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
The alpha jocks intimidate the omega nerds [/ QUOTE ] Actually studies on bullying show that the most popular are rarely involved in bullying. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can. [/ QUOTE ] But if stupid people didnt have sufficient wherewithall to survive (ie they couldnt compete for a scarce resource that requires intellectual capacity) then they would be selected out of the species. No more equally stupids to breed with each other. [/ QUOTE ] But I think they are selected against as a group, in the long run. If you look at it as rich vs. poor, which the stupid vs. smart leads to, then look at Katrina. Do you think an equal proportion of rich people and poor people died? Natural disasters will always select against the poor. So will wars. Poorer people also have more health problems and lower average life expectancy, meaning (I assume) that less of them survive to reproduce. They also tend to have more dangerous jobs. I'm sure there are a lot more factors I could think of that show poorer people as a group being selected against in postindustrial societies. So I think if stupider people are likely to be poorer, then they ARE more likely to be selected out of the species. Perhaps it isn't as dramatic as the cave man days, but seems like it still happens. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
"Or are you saying that we're not there yet, but will be in the future when the competitive instinct is socialized out of us or something like that? "
Yes, thats essentially what Im saying. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, the stupid people are breeding with each other, right? This doesn't go against HMK's argument at all. People do the best they can. [/ QUOTE ] But if stupid people didnt have sufficient wherewithall to survive (ie they couldnt compete for a scarce resource that requires intellectual capacity) then they would be selected out of the species. No more equally stupids to breed with each other. [/ QUOTE ] But I think they are selected against as a group, in the long run. If you look at it as rich vs. poor, which the stupid vs. smart leads to, then look at Katrina. Do you think an equal proportion of rich people and poor people died? Natural disasters will always select against the poor. So will wars. Poorer people also have more health problems and lower average life expectancy, meaning (I assume) that less of them survive to reproduce. They also tend to have more dangerous jobs. I'm sure there are a lot more factors I could think of that show poorer people as a group being selected against in postindustrial societies. So I think if stupider people are likely to be poorer, then they ARE more likely to be selected out of the species. Perhaps it isn't as dramatic as the cave man days, but seems like it still happens. [/ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. In the Katrina situation the catastrophe may have disproportionately affected the less capable, but there are plenty more of them available to migrate back to the area. Even if there were limited migration (eg a tsunami wipes out a disproportionate number of less capable remote islanders), that only impacts that limited population and would have no impact on the species in general. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
No, Im arguing that wealth (and other characteristics) are becoming less meaningful because natural selection is dominant over sexual selection. [/ QUOTE ] Natural selection is only dominant in low resource situations, once there are enough resources for survival sexual selection becomes more dominant. [ QUOTE ] In the context of classism in a purely homogenous and abundant society there are no distinguishable characteristics [/ QUOTE ] Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot. [/ QUOTE ] Ive already said that such a situation may never occur, but the premise of the thread is " Inevitable", ie under all possible conditions, so it isnt a moot situation. |
Re: Classism is Inevitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Since we don't, and never will, live in a homogeneous society all your points are moot. [/ QUOTE ] Ive already said that such a situation may never occur, but the premise of the thread is " Inevitable", ie under all possible conditions, so it isnt a moot situation. [/ QUOTE ] The likelyhood is essentially 0. Even if you started out with a homogeneous population that population wouldn't remain homogeneous since you still get mutations within germ lines. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. "Migration will generally unify gene frequencies among populations rapidly in evolutionary time. In the absence of selection, migration is a strong force for equalizing the gene frequencies of subpopulations in a species. Provided that the migration rate is greater than zero, gene frequencies will eventually equalize. Even if there is only one successful migrant per generation, gene flow inevitably draws the population's gene frequency to the species' average. Gene flow thus acts to bind the species together." Driving the gene frequency to the species' average limits the abiity of natural selection to operate. Read any good biology text and lack of migration is cited as a requirement for natural selection. The converse is that speciation most rapidly occurs in very isolated populations. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I will note that it is interesting that in the animal kingdom it is almost universally the male who developes the spectacular coloring and alluring dances to attract the female. Most human cultures are almost unique in that it is exactly the reverse; the females paint themselves and do their dances to compete for males. Why is this? Because they are competing for males. Why would the females have to compete for males when any male would be more than happy to donate a little sperm? Because the most economicaly successful males, the ones best able to provide for their children and hence the mother's genes, are by definition in the minority (bell curve). Money is their plummage. [/ QUOTE ] But the so-called elite males are also competing for a minority of the most desirable females, right, by trying to make tons of money and be successful? (and show this by wearing expensive suits and driving Porsches) So can you say one group is competing for the other and not vice versa? Maybe I'm not understanding. [/ QUOTE ] Dane, both groups compete for each other, the more monogamous the relationship the more selective the male will be. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. [/ QUOTE ] A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone). |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. [/ QUOTE ] A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone). [/ QUOTE ] Actually, to correct myself, on a technical level you are still wrong, since even with perfect migration new traits can still arise via mutation, which could permeate throughout the population. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. [/ QUOTE ] A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone). [/ QUOTE ] Actually, to correct myself, on a technical level you are still wrong, since even with perfect migration new traits can still arise via mutation, which could permeate throughout the population. [/ QUOTE ] Could, yes, but it is highy unlikely. Natural selection is, ultimately, a probability game. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in. So technically you are correct, but when you try to address this point from that extreme it becomes blatantly obvious that it is not worth mentioning since all reproduction in and of itself limits migration (ie we all cant reproduce with everyone). [/ QUOTE ] The bolded phrase is absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with. With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.' To the extent that this: "A lack of migration in this way is impossible and again not worth mentioning as a requirement since it exists as part of the universe we live in." is correct for any given species you are reinforcing my point...one of the basic requirements for natural selection is compromised, limiting the rate of natural selection, and eventually obviating the inevitability of "classism". However, even among humans, unfettered migration is a relatively recent phenomenon on an evolutionary scale. There are still many isolated species that will continue to evolve and even more speciation is likely in some populations. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.' [/ QUOTE ] No one allele has to be likely to be dominant, only that the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same. [ QUOTE ] It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with [/ QUOTE ] During sexual reproduction only one out of many possibly combinations is produced, as long as there are differences within the population Natural selection can occur. All that is required for natural selection is Variation + time. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] With unfettered migration no one allele is likely to become dominant because the percentage of the population with that allele is constantly diluted.' [/ QUOTE ] No one allele has to be likely to be dominant, only that the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same. [ QUOTE ] It has nothing to do with "reproducing with everyone", it is the gene pool that is available to reproduce with [/ QUOTE ] During sexual reproduction only one out of many possibly combinations is produced, as long as there are differences within the population Natural selection can occur. All that is required for natural selection is Variation + time. [/ QUOTE ] Again with the "can" or "could". Yes, there could be natural selection with only variation and time. But the rate of natural selection and the probability of it occurring at all are greatly diminished by migration. Relating my earlier quote with your "the sum probabilities of any allele becoming dominant is > the probability of all frequencies of alleles staying exactly the same.", migration drives the gene pool to the average of the species, ie that inequality is not met..the probability of the frequency of alleles staying the same dominates. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. [/ QUOTE ] "small populations drift more rapidly than larges ones" does not prove that "no or extremely limited migration" is a requirement for natural selection. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] One of the requirements of natural selection is that there be no or extremely limited migration. [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No, its not. [/ QUOTE ] yes it is [/ QUOTE ] From your link: "An important aspect of genetic drift is that its rate is expected to depend strongly on population size. This is a consequence of the law of large numbers. When many individuals carry a particular allele, and all face equal odds, the number of offspring they collectively produce will rarely differ from the expected value, which is the expected average per individual times the number of individuals. But with a small number of individuals, a lucky break for one or two causes a disproportionately greater deviation from the expected result. Therefore small populations drift more rapidly than large ones. This is the basis for the founder effect, a proposed mechanism of speciation." When you have unfettered migration the population approaches infinity in biological terms and the rate of drift approaches zero. See the quote in my prior post, added while you were posting. [/ QUOTE ] "small populations drift more rapidly than larges ones" does not prove that "no or extremely limited migration" is a requirement for natural selection. [/ QUOTE ] In isolation, no. Read the rest of the it and try to apply logical thought for a change. |
Re: Classism is Inenvitable
[ QUOTE ]
In isolation, no. Read the rest of the it and try to apply logical thought for a change. [/ QUOTE ] Typical. I'm going to start a catalog of your "you're stupid and I don't need to provide an argument" responses. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.