Maybe you're just misinterpreting my 7/10 analogy on natural selection?

1/5/2010 4:13:27 PM

are you really this stupid?

1/5/2010 5:44:22 PM

I actually am over here thinking I'm the only one in this thread with

1/5/2010 6:44:37 PM

Intelligence Gene, Bitches:

Quote :

""While our data suggests the dysbindin gene influences variation in human cognitive ability and intelligence, it only explained a small proportion of it -- about 3%," researcher Anil Malhotra, MD, says in a news release. "This supports a model involving multiple genetic and environmental influences on intelligence," Malhotra continues. Like Burdick, Malhotra works in the Zucker Hillside Hospital's psychiatry research department and the psychiatry department of Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Other researchers who worked on the study are based in Boston at Harvard Partners Center for Genetics and Genomics."

http://www.webmd.com/news/20060503/is-intelligence-in-genes

Holy shit, you mean BOTH nature and nurture is the answer?? whodathunkit?

1/5/2010 7:17:09 PM

according to that, the other 97% is NOT genetic

1/5/2010 7:22:24 PM

^^Everybody has thunk it except mambagrl.

Congrats!

1/5/2010 9:35:48 PM

97 vs 3% is hardly "BOTH"

1/5/2010 9:37:28 PM

How is it not both?

1/5/2010 9:44:18 PM

how is "hardly" "not" ?

1/5/2010 9:53:19 PM

Quote :

"97 vs 3% is hardly "BOTH""

That 3% is for ONE gene. Nice try though. Though it looks like they pulled 3% out of their ass regardless.

1/6/2010 2:42:55 AM

regardless of it being only one gene or not, there are still two components which undeniably constitutes both.

also, i've been biting my tongue because i normally don't feed trolls, but i just can't contain myself any more. IF YOU WORK OUT REALLY HARD AND BUILD MUSCLE THAT IN NO WAY AFFECTS YOUR CHILDREN AND THEIR MUSCULAR CAPABILITIES.

1/6/2010 9:15:08 AM

I'm seriously amazed by this thread.

1/6/2010 9:30:38 AM

its called natural selection. if your environment begins to require lots of muscle work, offspring will inherit muscular traits. Why do you think the south is SO athletic?

in a year there are both days where raleigh is covered in snow and days where raleigh is not blanketed in snow.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 11:09 AM. Reason : hardly both]

1/6/2010 11:08:15 AM

Thanks for playing.

Natural Selection = people adapted to environment are more likely to breed better. More of these people are around the next generation. Still more likely to breed better. Eventually these people make up the entire population.

The environment has absolutely nothing to do with what traits an individual will pass to an offspring. If you stayed in a cave for the rest of your life and had big eyes like golem, guess what? Your kids would be born with normal sized eyes.

Now if large eyed individuals are more likely to survive and more likely to breed, then in a population they will be having a greater number of big-eyed children who will then have even a greater number of big-eyed children and so forth until you have a population that has the most optimal eye-size for the environment.

Now, one thing to note, if your environment contains mutagens, then it is possible your environment would have an impact on what traits you pass to your children. Or if you were hit by an atomic bomb recently.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 4:40 PM. Reason : *mutations]

1/6/2010 4:38:15 PM

Quote :

"its called natural selection. if your environment begins to require lots of muscle work, offspring will inherit muscular traits. Why do you think the south is SO athletic? in a year there are both days where raleigh is covered in snow and days where raleigh is not blanketed in snow. "

well I understand why the first part is completely retarded but the second part just has me confused because I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 9:09 PM. Reason : !]

1/6/2010 9:08:02 PM

Quote :

"Natural Selection = people adapted to environment are more likely to breed better. More of these people are around the next generation. Still more likely to breed better. Eventually these people make up the entire population. The environment has absolutely nothing to do with what traits an individual will pass to an offspring. If you stayed in a cave for the rest of your life and had big eyes like golem, guess what? Your kids would be born with normal sized eyes. Now if large eyed individuals are more likely to survive and more likely to breed, then in a population they will be having a greater number of big-eyed children who will then have even a greater number of big-eyed children and so forth until you have a population that has the most optimal eye-size for the environment. Now, one thing to note, if your environment contains mutagens, then it is possible your environment would have an impact on what traits you pass to your children. Or if you were hit by an atomic bomb recently. "

Glad someone has a grasp on natural selection.

People like mambagrl arguing about evolution with their skewed misguided understanding of evolution only reenforce and encourage Creationists.

1/6/2010 9:19:33 PM

first of all natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.

Secondly that post is partially correct with a few incorrect statements but the poster seems to have a very elementary (southern approved high school textbookesque) understanding of natural selection.

Quote :

"Natural Selection = people adapted to environment are more likely to breed better. More of these people are around the next generation. Still more likely to breed better. Eventually these people make up the entire population. "

nothing to do with "breeding better" I think what you meant here was will produce offspring more likely to survive. Those without mutations that increase likelihood of survival will produce offspring that eventually die out.

Quote :

"The environment has absolutely nothing to do with what traits an individual will pass to an offspring."

wrong. I'll go straight from charles darwin on this one. Basic example. one species of turtle inhabited the galapagos. One island became drier than the other and the turtles ont he dry island developed the ability to reach their neck striaght up to get water from plants and small trees. Each generation was able to reach higher and higher angles with their neck The turtles on the other island did not and the turtles on the island that didn't reach up for food's offspring died off once reaching up became the only way to get water.

Now the ability to reach up didn't make the turtles breed any more efficiently, it just made the turtles that reached up have offspring that were better at reaching up and the turtles on the dry island that didn't reach up had offspring that couldn't reach up and eventually died from lack of water.

[Edited on January 6, 2010 at 9:40 PM. Reason : lol]

1/6/2010 9:39:55 PM

we'll work with your example in order to place out the err in your perception.

With these turtles those with longer necks were more likely to survive and get food. This quality was an attractive quality. Thus turtles with a gene for longer necks would breed more often both because:

1. they were likely to survive to breed in the first place

AND

2. because the longer neck has become a more desirable trait and as such turtles with this particular distinction would be chosen more frequently as mates.

Where your comprehension of the matters fails is that you believe the use of this gene promoted a stronger expression of this gene in the offspring. This is incorrect. Those turtles who used their necks did not produce offspring with longer necks based on the use of their necks alone.

If I am naturally predisposed to being muscular and that is seen as an attractive trait then my likelihood in being perceived as an ideal mate rises. I then pass my genes along to my children who will carry this trait and possible breed with another offspring of someone who was naturally muscular. Now we have a grandchild of potential muscular variety and the trend continues.

A very good recent example of natural selection, since most have been removed, is height. If I stretch myself out all day to get taller that won't affect my offspring; however, taller people are more likely to breed due to the desirability of the trait and this will in turn favor the production of tall children.

do you understand it yet?

1/7/2010 9:35:42 AM

I understand completely what you are saying but you have one component of this down but that seems to be all you know about the topic. Thats why I said elementary understanding.

Beneficial traits aren't always visible so often times organisms with the trait are just as sexually desireable as ones without it. Does this means natural selection doesn't take place with these traits? No.

Physical adjustments to your environment often alter your dna which is passed on. Of course some of this happens with the brain but the human brain is so powerful and so unused that the 3% is highly negligible. Now, if humans used 100% of their brains then that would be something closer to a +-3% difference in human cognitive ability based on genetics.

1/7/2010 9:46:08 AM

Quote :

"If I work out everday and get very strong, those genes are passed on to my children"

Quote :

"Physical adjustments to your environment often alter your dna which is passed on."

1/7/2010 10:23:09 AM

it just keeps getting better

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : is there such thing as a /facepalm gene?]

1/7/2010 11:16:37 AM

Quote :

"Physical adjustments to your environment often alter your dna which is passed on. Of course some of this happens with the brain but the human brain is so powerful and so unused that the 3% is highly negligible. Now, if humans used 100% of their brains then that would be something closer to a +-3% difference in human cognitive ability based on genetics."

You have to be trolling. Did I hear someone say you were a teacher?

1/7/2010 11:32:40 AM

Quote :

"Physical adjustments to your environment often alter your dna which is passed on"

wow

1/7/2010 11:43:08 AM

holy crap you guys need to take a step back to op's map/article. Do you really think there were black people in europe but they died off because they couldn't mate? And none of the white people in africa could mate so they died off?

Or did the change in the environment (less radiation exposure as they migrated from equator) cause their skin to not produce as much melanin?

Well were all of their kids in europe born black again? no these alterations due to a different environment were passed on.

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM. Reason : V?]

1/7/2010 7:22:09 PM

cause they are better, duh

btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth

[Edited on January 7, 2010 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ]

1/7/2010 7:38:16 PM

WTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

1/8/2010 9:40:06 AM

Quote :

"Or did the change in the environment (less radiation exposure as they migrated from equator) cause their skin to not produce as much melanin?"

Quote :

"holy crap you guys need to take a step back to op's map/article"

Here I'll help you out with this:

Quote :

"Too much UV penetrating the skin (too pale-skinned under intense sunlight) increases Vitamin D but reduces folate. Lack of folate causes neural tube defects in the fetus, causing such congenital abnormalities as craniorachischisis, anencephalus, and spina bifida, leading to many miscarriages. On the other hand, too little UV penetrating the skin (too dark-skinned under dim sunlight) increases folate but reduces vitamin D. Lack of vitamin D causes skeletal neonatal abnormalities (skull, chest, and leg malformations), rickets being the best known. Again, this causes miscarriages."

So the darkies didn't have trouble fucking, they had trouble producing offspring and, as suggested in the article, they were more likely to be born with defects if they survived at all. So imagine a bunch of dark people living too far north (for their skin tone) mating and having children but also having miscarriages and children with all kinds of deformities. Now imagine a person is born with a trait that makes infantile pale skin extend into adulthood (I'm thinking something like albino-ism, but I'm probably wrong) thus giving them an advantage in producing viable offspring and increasing the likelihood of that DNA being passed down. Over time even the slightest advantage is important (think roulette) and this article suggests that this is a huge advantage.

I really know nothing of the subject but that is what I got out of the article. I sure as hell didn't read/interpret anything in that article that suggest that if I work out and go to the tanning bed everyday that my kids will be brown and strong (because of me working out and tanning).

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 11:39:11 AM

mambagrl confusing "breeding" with "mating" ITT.

Individuals with horribly shitty traits to the environment can fuck as well as other individuals. See the above post for clarification.

1/8/2010 1:29:14 PM

^actually see my post again saying "do you really think...[confusion]"

Quote :

"I really know nothing of the subject but that is what I got out of the article. I sure as hell didn't read/interpret anything in that article that suggest that if I work out and go to the tanning bed everyday that my kids will be brown and strong (because of me working out and tanning)."

Explain how you think all the different races came from one. Your answer to that question will probably explain your misunderstanding of the topic.

[Edited on January 10, 2010 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ^had trouble reading or mistaked me for another user]

1/10/2010 10:52:42 PM

stop seriously

1/11/2010 1:57:33 AM

hopefully she will learn, so her offspring can inherit the "know when to stop" gene.

[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 12:58 PM. Reason : d]

1/11/2010 12:55:08 PM

i hope what she says is true.

i'd love for my kid to be a transformer since I spend so much of my time in automobiles.

1/11/2010 1:42:41 PM

I hope my kid inherits my post history on tww.

1/11/2010 1:44:06 PM

Mambagrl seems like she would fit in nicely with the geniuses in the show Jersey Shore.

[Edited on January 11, 2010 at 10:33 PM. Reason : in]

1/11/2010 10:30:20 PM

Quote :

"Explain how you think all the different races came from one. Your answer to that question will probably explain your misunderstanding of the topic."

TFA Tells you:

Quote :

"When the inhabitants of this region switched to grain about 6 KYA, they suddenly got insufficient vitamin D to survive. They had stopped eating mostly meat and fish in a place where sunlight was too dim to produce vitamin D in normally pigmented skin. And so they adapted by retaining into adulthood the infantile trait of extreme paleness. Blonde hair and blue eyes were other infantile traits that were just swept along accidentally."

You think this means that they all instantly mutated into pale people and passed these traits to their offspring. What really happened was paler people survived to fuck and have kids more often who were then more likely to have those pale traits and still more likely to fuck and have kids more often etc.

The not pale people died and did not have children (but probably not immediately, over several generations) or they migrated back south and started fucking darker people down there.

1/12/2010 11:18:53 AM

Quote :

"What really happened was paler people survived to fuck and have kids more often who were then more likely to have those pale traits and still more likely to fuck and have kids more often etc."

You need to ask yourselves these questions

A. How did said people get paler?

B. Why weren't their kids born with the original pigment their parents had?

1/13/2010 7:22:25 PM

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : thats rude]

1/13/2010 7:59:25 PM

Quote :

"A. How did said people get paler? B. Why weren't their kids born with the original pigment their parents had?"

Do you really need me to explain dominant and recessive genes and how children obtain traits from their parents?

zomg, my hair color isn't the same as my mother and father, wtf?

1/13/2010 8:11:02 PM

I didn't ask you to explain anything. I said ask yourselves those questions.

Quote :

"children obtain traits from their parents?"

is what I was trying to get you to think about

1/13/2010 9:04:13 PM

lol y'all niggas is getting trolled HARD ITT

1/13/2010 10:01:39 PM

At some point in history, a genetic trait was created to increase the paleness of skin by combining the two genotypes or a genetic mutation....
Until the event (vitamin d deficiency) caused this trait to increase survivability its presence in population was simply a matter of chance and what other genes it interacted with during breeding.

However, when the event occurred, this trait became more prevalent as more people with the trait survived to make more children. NOT ALL OF THEIR CHILDREN HAD THIS TRAIT, however, as it like many other genetic traits aren't guaranteed to manifest in children depending on the genetic makeup of the child's other parent. Therefore those children were more likely to die and less likely to get the opportunity to pass the trait to their children. Get it yet?

The event (sudden vitamin d shortage) did not cause the mutation. It existed in the population before this point. Everyone didn't suddenly become paler. Life is not X-men.

[Edited on January 13, 2010 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2010 11:13:54 PM

mambagrl is doing that trick of hers where she says something absolutely goddamn retarded and gets called out on it.

Then she pulls the "I was trying to get you to think about blah blah blah" shit.

1/14/2010 12:40:49 AM

wtf happened to this thread

1/14/2010 12:43:20 AM

Much truth in that but you speak as if there are only two races. Or maybe you're just trying to oversimplify it. There is a smooth transition from black to white with all the races in between. That is evidence that transitions took place over several generations. We also see clearly the effect of "tanning"

^^

Quote :

"Your answer to that question will probably explain your misunderstanding of the topic."

^^I think I made it pretty clear

[Edited on January 14, 2010 at 9:11 AM. Reason : josh groban]

1/14/2010 8:56:33 AM

He isn't speaking as if there are only two races. His situation is independent of race. In this scenario there could have been 1 race at the time, 2 races at the time, or 500 at the time. Race is nothing more than a collection of traits that is the result of genetic drift.

Lets say the pale mutation happened in Africa, which is likely since so much of our time was spent there, and people migrated out. Those who crossed the through india and towards asia would not be so adverse affected by the lack of sun and some brown people would have maintained adequate vitamin d to keep alive and pass along their genes. conversely less would have survived in europe and those who continued to survive would be more pale.

Skin color isn't just black, white, red, or yellow. there is variation in all 'races' and ethnic subgroups.

1/14/2010 9:32:43 AM

The idea that black people couldn't survive in China, the sahara region and even the mediterranean is a reach. Even then. Not enough would've died create the uniform distribution of native complextion.

1/14/2010 9:42:38 AM

Do an experiment. Eat carrots until you turn orange. Have your mate eat carrots until he turns orange. Fuck and have a child. Will it be orange?

1/14/2010 9:49:05 AM

No because your body isn't producing the karotin and even if it was this is a gradual process that takes several generations.

1/14/2010 10:05:26 AM

Lamarck is proud of this thread.

1/14/2010 10:10:23 AM

It was not a random mutation that gave some giraffes longer necks.

1/14/2010 11:04:42 AM