The anthropologist is in....

[ygmir]

on a serious note....i saw a piece the other night about near extinct species and the effects of isolation and in particular, the iberian mynx which has a genetic pre-coded disposition to kill their siblings viciously during the so-called "fighting" season...

before their numbers dwindled as a direct result of loss of habitat and food supply, this would allow for literally, the survival of the fittest, however, now almost exclusively bred in captivity, it has unfortunately hastened their demise.

how do you explain this almost contrarian process?

and, as humans, we are theoretically the only species capable of consciously destroying ourselves as a species, is this feature, called "Human Nature" or a natural drive to destruction as strong as the natural drive to create?

or should i stop worrying about this crap and catch a nice re-run of tyra?

I like you best with your red wig and paddle, chasing Poo.............

[thejabberwocky]

A good way to think of fitness is how well an individual "fits" into its environment. The specific traits it has(whatever those may be) originally gave its ancestors an advantage over others, and so they were the ones who survived to pass the traits on. Those traits, although they would have given their ancestors a higher level of fitness, may not be particularly well adapted to the present, and would lower the degree to which the animal now "fits" into the environment, as in the case of the mynx.

that's my take on it anyhow. don't know if that answers your question about why it's not a contrarian process

[chiefdanfox]

... bred in captivity, it has unfortunately hastened their demise.

Key word: Captivity. Human activity is a global force, affecting many cycles, and creating others. There is a plastic cycle now. Plastics are being introduced into the geologic record. Humans have affected the carbon cycle, the iron cycle, et seq.
Is it so hard to think that we also affect species? We have indisputable proof of humans forcing species into extinction. Do we understand how those species impacted the environment, both as extant and extinct?

[Simon of the Playa]

so then we are the problem and the solution it appears.


save the planet, kill yourself.


go ahead hippies, do your part...dont be selfish.

[ygmir]

... bred in captivity, it has unfortunately hastened their demise.

Key word: Captivity. Human activity is a global force, affecting many cycles, and creating others. There is a plastic cycle now. Plastics are being introduced into the geologic record. Humans have affected the carbon cycle, the iron cycle, et seq.
Is it so hard to think that we also affect species? We have indisputable proof of humans forcing species into extinction. Do we understand how those species impacted the environment, both as extant and extinct?

Do you think what "humans" do is, then, "bad", or, just another set of circumstances affecting Earth?

Will our presence even be noticeable in a million years (relatively short in geologic time)

Certainly, in the past, more species have died off faster, climate has changed more drastically, weather patterns have been changed in greater degrees........

not saying we shouldn't do what we can to lessen impact, but, not sure our impact is really a big deal, other than on ourselves and the lifestyles we demand, in the long run.

CDF, you have great amounts of info on this, I'd be interested in your take on human activity in general, as overall earth impacts, compared to historical changes and events.

[Ugly Dougly]

Are moeities an inevitable feature of every society?

[Marscrumbs]

A good way to think of fitness is how well an individual "fits" into its environment. The specific traits it has(whatever those may be) originally gave its ancestors an advantage over others, and so they were the ones who survived to pass the traits on. Those traits, although they would have given their ancestors a higher level of fitness, may not be particularly well adapted to the present, and would lower the degree to which the animal now "fits" into the environment, as in the case of the mynx.

that's my take on it anyhow. don't know if that answers your question about why it's not a contrarian process

Yes, that's why cool wind prone themecamp structures, hippy buses and novel art projects have been replaced by rented RV's parked in a circle. Viva la playa!

[chiefdanfox]

I think humanity is just another set of events affecting Earth, like other global events, but the difference is that humans can think about our impact and make choices. We are not a chunk of space rock caught in an inevitable impact trajectory.

I think a million years after we are gone, or even 50 million years, one could find our curious layer in the rocks rather easily. The soils we fertilize, the above ground atomic weapons testing, the enormous amount of coal we burn and the plastic will all leave little clues. I think our impact viewed in the geologic record will be fairly significant. It won't rate up there with the Stromatolites or the Siberian Traps, but I believe we are going to leave a lot more than fossilized bones.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Wow, what a "Gem-of-a-thread"..... and the Doctor hasn't even flinched at the clowning around going on here..... ..... I like it!

OK, so what are the theories of reverse evolution... Whereby adaptations within the species, that are no longer used, but, once again are needed to be "switched on" in order to survive in a particular environment?


For instance, I've adapted the ability to drink warm PBR on the Playa, as it was before refrigeration, and as consumed by early man. Does this mean I could consider myself to have evolved or de-volved?........




Or more seriously, when an individual of a species dies, are there individual cells within the organizm that could continue to survive.... thus carrying on parts of the genetic blueprint?

[ygmir]

Are moeities an inevitable feature of every society?

I'd think so.
Heck, I've noted that, usually, if more than 10 or so people get together at one time, a schism will develop........

but, that's just my opinion and observation

[ygmir]

I think humanity is just another set of events affecting Earth, like other global events, but the difference is that humans can think about our impact and make choices. We are not a chunk of space rock caught in an inevitable impact trajectory.

I think a million years after we are gone, or even 50 million years, one could find our curious layer in the rocks rather easily. The soils we fertilize, the above ground atomic weapons testing, the enormous amount of coal we burn and the plastic will all leave little clues. I think our impact viewed in the geologic record will be fairly significant. It won't rate up there with the Stromatolites or the Siberian Traps, but I believe we are going to leave a lot more than fossilized bones.

yeah, I agree mostly. good points.
I wonder, though:
Just because we can think about our impact, and,maybe know what it'll do, how will we know if the choices we make are correct? and, correct, for whom?

the big asteroid/comet that hit earth and caused the mass extinctions was a bummer for T-Rex, but, a pretty good thing for mammals and, ultimately, us............
Will the plastic in the layer we leave, end up feeding some microbe that comes and repopulates earth with wise, all knowing, all caring creatures?
Maybe.

I guess all I'm getting at is that all the doom and gloom, back and forth of the different groups, projecting the ultimate outcome of a certain action, or lack thereof, is, IMHO, speculation in the long term.
Many of the "learned, opinionated, influential" people that make proclamations about how we should live and what we should do, feel their "opinions" (which often is just what it is) are sacrosanct.

I feel, do minimal harm, don't waste or be wantonly destructive, but, don't live in mud huts and eat grubs either.........
it seems very ego-centric (if I use the term correctly) to think we are powerful enough to ruin the entire earth, to have such impacts that the earth can't heal. Sure, in the short term views that we have, at most multi-generational, things happen.
But, clearcut a mountain, and, we think it's lost for ever............probably not. but, it is lost for a generation or two.
Does the earth care about 100 years of desolation? I'd look at Mt. St. Helens, and, say, probably not............

wow, I'm rambling.........sorry.........(not so sorry as to delete it, though........grin......)

[Countess]

on a serious note....i saw a piece the other night about near extinct species and the effects of isolation and in particular, the iberian mynx which has a genetic pre-coded disposition to kill their siblings viciously during the so-called "fighting" season...

before their numbers dwindled as a direct result of loss of habitat and food supply, this would allow for literally, the survival of the fittest, however, now almost exclusively bred in captivity, it has unfortunately hastened their demise.

how do you explain this almost contrarian process?

and, as humans, we are theoretically the only species capable of consciously destroying ourselves as a species, is this feature, called "Human Nature" or a natural drive to destruction as strong as the natural drive to create?

or should i stop worrying about this crap and catch a nice re-run of tyra?

Thank you so much for this great example. It related with what I was talking about when I brought up cannibalism, as well as genetic drift. There are two concepts we should talk about in relation to the unfortunate iberian mynx. (BTW I am not specifically familiar with this creature's plight, but I will assume that you have the facts straight in order to explain how evolutionary theory is supposed to explain such phenomenon.)

LEVELS OF SELECTION
Individual level
Natural selection usually operates at the level of the individual organism. Traits can evolve that help an individual to out-compete others in the population. Cannibalism, murder, and infanticide are traits that can benefit the individual. The fact that they hurt the population as a whole is not going to stop them from spreading, because the individuals who have the trait may reproduce at a higher rate than those who do not have the trait and therefore the trait will persist and even become more frequent.
Group selection
There are cases where natural selection operates at the group level. But these groups would have to be isolated in some way, so that no gene flow occurs between groups. This is seems unlikely in animal populations. But because of cultural differences, human groups that live in close proximity may not mate with one another. In this case it is possible for the groups to be in competition with one another, and not just individuals. There need not be direct competetion -- as in violence. If one group simply reproduces at a higher rater than the other group, then eventually the first group will replace the slower reproducing group. (This may have occurred in our evolutionary history if different hominid groups living in Africa were reproductively isolated from one another and the groups were reproducing at different rates.)

One of the messages of this post is to suggest that we stop thinking about species level phenonmenon -- and focus on individuals and populations. Let's leave the broader discussion of "human nature" to the philosophers and the poets for a moment, and think about specific populations living in specific environments and the distribution of traits in actual individuals and groups.

GENETIC DRIFT
One of the forces of evolution that can change gene frequencies is genetic drift. This basically describes how chance can affect the distribution of genes in a specific population. Chance can be especially powerful in small populations that break off from larger populations. The smaller population is a sample of the larger population, but it is less likely to be a representative sample of the original if the population is very small.

So back to the minx...

We should not be surprised that some minx are murderous, because this trait may be advantageous for an individual minx in a very competitive environment. I would be surprised to learn that they are murdering their close relatives in the wild. Because they share as much as half their genes with their siblings, one would expect them to more murderous towards non-kin or distant kin.

But perhaps what has happened here is an example of genetic drift. In the original population only some minx were murderous. There was variation among individuals with regards to this trait. As long as the number of murderous minx remained low, the population was large enough to tolerate some murders. But when a small number of minx were captured by humans, all or most of those captured just happened (by chance) to carry the murderous trait. Now in captivity, this potentially advantageous trait for the individual has become a liability for the group.

There may be other explanations for this particular example. Perhaps Simon could find us a link to the piece he is citing? I would sure be interested in learning more about this case.

[Simon of the Playa]

it was on pbs the other night, "nova" i believe, it was about the end of a species, or near extinct.....in particular, The Last Giant Tortoise that lives in the Galapagos...Lonesome Charlie, or something like that....the poor guy is just middle age at 100 yrs old, and he is the last of the mohicans, so to speak. he looks terribly sad, even for a Tortoise.
The minx was discussed because the researchers and zoologists were completely surprised by the fratricide and had to video monitor the cubs 24/7 to ensure the steel cage death matches were stopped before someone scratched an eye out.
i will try to find the link, PBS is good about that kinda thing.

[Simon of the Playa]

question, do epigenetic factors apply to all species?

[Artemis]

I saw bits of that episode too. Here's a link:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/the-loneliest-animals/video-full-episode/4935/

[Bob]

mynx/minx

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[theCryptofishist]

in particular, The Last Giant Tortoise that lives in the Galapagos...Lonesome Charlie, or something like that....the poor guy is just middle age at 100 yrs old, and he is the last of the mohicans,

He's not the last tortoise on the Galapagos islands. He may be the last of his species tortoise on a particular Galopagos Island.

But they do have volcanos there.

[theCryptofishist]

mynx/minx

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Ugly Dougly]

Ah yes, Minsk. It is beautiful this time of year, yes?

[Countess]

question, do epigenetic factors apply to all species?

epigenetic = non-DNA cellular transmission of traits

For further reading on this revolutionary subject, I suggest the following book by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb.



About the Book
Ideas about heredity and evolution are undergoing a revolutionary change. New findings in molecular biology challenge the gene-centered version of Darwinian theory according to which adaptation occurs only through natural selection of chance DNA variations. In Evolution in Four Dimensions, Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb argue that there is more to heredity than genes. They trace four "dimensions" in evolution—four inheritance systems that play a role in evolution: genetic, epigenetic (or non-DNA cellular transmission of traits), behavioral, and symbolic (transmission through language and other forms of symbolic communication). These systems, they argue, can all provide variations on which natural selection can act. Evolution in Four Dimensions offers a richer, more complex view of evolution than the gene-based, one-dimensional view held by many today. The new synthesis advanced by Jablonka and Lamb makes clear that induced and acquired changes also play a role in evolution.
After discussing each of the four inheritance systems in detail, Jablonka and Lamb "put Humpty Dumpty together again" by showing how all of these systems interact. They consider how each may have originated and guided evolutionary history and they discuss the social and philosophical implications of the four-dimensional view of evolution. Each chapter ends with a dialogue in which the authors engage the contrarieties of the fictional (and skeptical) "I.M.," or Ifcha Mistabra—Aramaic for "the opposite conjecture"—refining their arguments against I.M.'s vigorous counterarguments. The lucid and accessible text is accompanied by artist-physician Anna Zeligowski's lively drawings, which humorously and effectively illustrate the authors' points.

About the Authors
Eva Jablonka is Professor at the Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas at Tel Aviv University.
Marion J. Lamb was Senior Lecturer at Birkbeck College, University of London, before her retirement.

You can download the prologue and one chapter at the link below.
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10470&mode=toc

[Countess]

mynx/minx

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Yes. I watched the video and we are mistaken. It is the Iberian lynx about which we write (not mynx).

According to the Nature piece, the lynx is endangered because humans introduced a disease in the area -- in order to reduce the rabbit population. Rabbits were the primary food source for the Iberian lynx living in this environment. Under these extreme conditions we should not be surprised that at least some of the lynx adapted by eating their own kin. Those who ate their siblings would have survived at a higher rate and therefore passed on their genes at a higher rater; while those who did not have this trait would have less options for sources of food and therefore would have lower reproductive fitness. The conservationists happen to be breeding lynx with this trait, which is not adaptive in the context of captivity where there is plenty of food.

[littleflower]

hi countess ...

i'm curious to know what you know about twins... my sisters are identical twins, and, while very alike, they are also quite different in some ways ... some physical traits, some personality traits. i guess that's a pretty open question... but how would two people with identical genes and upbringing be different? for instance, only one needs glasses ... one is definitely more aggressive ...

the book looks so interesting ... thanks for the suggestion, it's such an interesting subject.

[chiefdanfox]

I was just reflecting on the newest strain of Swine Flu. Apparently it has genetic code from pigs, humans and birds. (H1N1)
I was just wondering how that could happen, given the improbability of the bullshit predicted by evolutionary biology.

[Simon of the Playa]

oh sure , make fun of my dyslexia.


now you know why i'm such an ass about spelling.


it was beaten into me.


after googling Minx, i cam up with this picture and have decided i like my spelling better.

[ygmir]

I was just reflecting on the newest strain of Swine Flu. Apparently it has genetic code from pigs, humans and birds. (H1N1)
I was just wondering how that could happen, given the improbability of the bullshit predicted by evolutionary biology.

Chinese/CIA/NWO engineering, of course..........

[wedeliver]

oh sure , make fun of my dyslexia....

I suffer from aixelsyd. A very rare form of what you got.

[Countess]

i'm curious to know what you know about twins... my sisters are identical twins, and, while very alike, they are also quite different in some ways ... some physical traits, some personality traits. i guess that's a pretty open question... but how would two people with identical genes and upbringing be different? for instance, only one needs glasses ... one is definitely more aggressive ...

Studies of twins are an important avenue for researchers looking at the heritability of a trait. Some traits are designed to be flexible, while others are designed to be inflexible. We have to look at twins to sort this out.

Some features of organisms seem designed to be very responsive to particular environmental factors—like behavior. Behavioral flexibility is a product of natural selection. The ability to learn adaptive behaviors is itself an adaptation.

Canalized traits= traits that show the same phenotype in a wide range of environments
Plastic traits = traits that show different phenotypes in different environments

In nature, canalized traits are rare. A flexible trait, whether morphological or behavioral, is an adaptation to an unstable environment.

One of the mistakes that people make is to ask the question "Is this behavior is shaped by nature or nuture?" They are asking if the behavior is genetically determined or learned. However, this a false dichotomy. There is no clear distinction between the effects of genes (nature) and the effects of the environment (nuture). All traits are products of genes and environment. It is impossible to isolate these components completely from one another.

We ought to think of genes like recipes (rather than blueprints). If we were looking at a cake, would you ask the baker: “What shapes this cake more -- the recipe or the ingredients?â€

[ygmir]

[Simon of the Playa]

[ygmir]

looks suspiciously like Ilya Kuryakin............