Quake3World

Pretty obvious of course, but an interesting article all the same.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709

Yes interesting R00k.

Funny I think the human race is perhaps going backwards sometimes, as per quote from that article..

"When you take them systematically out of the population for several years, you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding."

I submit, what if only dumb arse humans are breeding faster than the smarter ones?

Come on admit it. It is happening now. The planet is doomed

Whiskey 7 wrote:Yes interesting R00k.

Funny I think the human race is perhaps going backwards sometimes, as per quote from that article..

"When you take them systematically out of the population for several years, you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding."

I submit, what if only dumb arse humans are breeding faster than the smarter ones?

Come on admit it. It is happening now. The planet is doomed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

R00k wrote:Pretty obvious of course, but an interesting article all the same.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709

Nice racks on those kudus.

Fender wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0

I'm glad someone posted it before i did...

idiocracy is one of the worst movies ever made.

yet one of the best examples of what could happen with the stupid shit that go's on.

"I'm going to base my fist off your face! Ass!"

so.. 'devolution' then

Whiskey 7 wrote:Yes interesting R00k.

Funny I think the human race is perhaps going backwards sometimes, as per quote from that article..

"When you take them systematically out of the population for several years, you end up leaving essentially a bunch of losers doing the breeding."

I submit, what if only dumb arse humans are breeding faster than the smarter ones?

Come on admit it. It is happening now. The planet is doomed

I mentioned this same thing in another thread a long while back. There is no more natural selection (for the most part) for humans. Anyone and everyone can mate by some fashion, regardless of health, genetics, etc. There is no selection of advantageous qualities.

I wouldn't be too surprised that if this continued for a few thousand years, we'd actually see humans divide into multiple species, since dumb people tend to mate with dumb people, fatties with fatties, and so forth.

It won't outlast this century unperturbed, the brain is our undiscovered country.

Can I just say that hunting doesn't cause reverse evolution. Now, trophy hunting may be a different story...

That's whole point of the article. Did you read it?

Dr_Watson wrote:idiocracy is one of the worst movies ever made.

Did it offend your intellect?

xer0s wrote:Can I just say that hunting doesn't cause reverse evolution. Now, trophy hunting may be a different story...

You only needed to read a few lines to figure out that was the point of the link.

Overhunting can affect evolution if populations are decimated and the size of the gene pool dramatically decreased, but regular hunting done responsibly really shouldn't affect it too much - hunters with guns are a different sort of selective pressure (i.e. on that is a lot harder to adapt to) than prey species that have adapted means to escape those animals that hunt them.

Trophy hunting should be outlawed IMHO.

in a wierd twist 'trophy hunters' always opted for the bigger racks(i.e.older animals) than taking the young ones...a conservationist approach that has/will backfire according to this article...

Trophy hunters don't aim for big racks for conservationist reasons. lol

evolution has no direction, right?

Pext wrote:evolution has no direction, right?

it has no direction in terms of some final ideal form that it is approaching. In this case the directionality implied by the term 'reverse' has more to do with the shift in predominant characteristics that are resulting from the removal of many of the alphas from the populations.

Pext wrote:evolution has no direction, right?

Correct. Hunting is one form of what is called "artificial selection", where the agent driving change is humanity, not natural selection.

Bilirubin wrote:

Pext wrote:evolution has no direction, right?

Correct. Hunting is one form of what is called "artificial selection", where the agent driving change is humanity, not natural selection.

Artificial selection is generally used to describe selective breeding of animals by humans, not necessarily hunting. If humans are considered part of nature (even though their guns aren't) then hunting is a selective pressure driving natural selection wherein those animals with the traits that offer the best chance of survival (camouflage, speed, etc.) will have greater reproductive success.

Racehorse breeding, breeding dairy cows for optimal milk output are examples of artificial selection.

tnf wrote:

Bilirubin wrote: Correct. Hunting is one form of what is called "artificial selection", where the agent driving change is humanity, not natural selection.

Artificial selection is generally used to describe selective breeding of animals by humans, not necessarily hunting.

Aye, good point. But I was referring to hunting with guns when I made my comment.

If humans are considered part of nature (even though their guns aren't) then hunting is a selective pressure driving natural selection wherein those animals with the traits that offer the best chance of survival (camouflage, speed, etc.)...

Smaller racks and body size, shorter tusks. Etc.

Did you know Napoleon's size requirement for his soldiers, and the slaughter of them in places like Moscow, directly led to an average decrease in height of the French population which you can still see should you get on the Metro today?

I think the discussion on direction in evolution is a bit off track tbh.

Evolution isn't an intelligent process and doesn't have a "direction" in mind during selection. Even so, it's possible to look back on a species, see what traits have been selected for (and are still being selected for) in its natural habitat, and call those selection pressures it's current "direction," for lack of a better term. Although it's not the best terminology to use, it wouldn't be too inaccurate to say that the current "direction" of deer's evolution in their natural habitats would tend to favor stronger deer with large racks, because those deer win fights and are able to mate.

Saying that trophy hunting is causing 'reverse' evolution simply means that human involvement is reversing effects (phenotypes) that evolution is and has been selecting for naturally. I don't think it's implying that evolution is following some sort of path.

Also, I think it's hard to make the case that this kind of human interaction is part of the natural course of evolution. That's about the same as saying that smog and pollution are natural just because humans created them, and humans are natural inhabitants of the planet. Saying that may be technically true in a sense, but it ignores the point and doesn't advance the discussion.

It isn't evolution in reverse, it's changing the course of the evolution of certain species.

Watch Aeon Flux - End Sinister.

The DVD version is different from the original, whether it's better I don't know, but watch it anyway.

"Reverse" is more or less accurate, as the characteristics that normally increase chances of propagation now specifically increase the chance of being killed.

Essentially the opposite effect of what nature has caused.

It's not "reverse" from some predetermined goal of nature, just "reverse" of the direction it's been going till now.

Evolution tends to move in the direction of increasing complexity.