Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 144 of 144

Thread: Evolutionary fitness (split from devolution thread)

  1. #101  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Edit: Also, according to this paper, more extensive clinical studies on the placebo effect are certainly being carried out. (And as a side note, finding full text papers is definitely a pain but you can at the very least get the abstract for nearly everything.)
    There's also a great "layman" overview of the current thinking on the placebo effect in Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Cancer remission seems pretty far-fetched, with an N=1, it's much, much more likely to be a simple temporal correlation with regression to the mean (cancer just goes away sometimes). But for pain, placebo effect seems quite remarkably powerful in a significant proportion of the population. And that based on the findings of a great many studies. There's also a really interesting cultural element to the effect, the meaning of a treatment has a significant influence on the outcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I should mention that my main argument wasn't about curing cancer, it was more of an "It can EVEN cure cancer" reference. The placebo effect has been shown to do a lot of other things, as one of the articles states, and is worth looking into. Again, imagine if humans could consciously control it to their benefit?
    Certainly; the full text article I linked to goes into that as well. I just focused on cancer since that seemed to be the main brunt of the current disagreement. As Biologista mentioned, the placebo effect when it comes to pain management alone can be pretty impressive.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, the placebo effect can certainly accelerate cancer. If nothing else it will affect what measures a person takes in order to maintain their health once they contract it, and that indirectly affects the immune system.

    So, should we say that optimism is an evolutionary determinant for survival? In some ways, it's probably driven by instinct, at least partially. Could we breed for optimism? Would we want to? But then... wouldn't optimists also want to overpopulate, because they assume there will always be enough resources?

    It would be an example of Darwinism working against itself, because prior to the nuclear bomb, a high birth rate made your culture more fit. (More likely to win the next territorial war, and increase it's access to land), whereas after the nuclear bomb, a high birth rate just means your culture gets overrun with children it can't feed, and a bad workers-to-capital ratio, which makes them unproductive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It would be an example of Darwinism working against itself, wouldn't it?
    Not at all. Natural selection is not far sighted; natural selection really only takes into account relatively immediate effects on the reproductive success of individuals (in their offspring and maybe their grandoffspring). Something that is going to affect their great-great-great-great grandoffspring will not be selected against. Thus the example (which I think I have talked about before in this very thread) of animals over-specializing into certain niches and going extinct when that niche disappears. There is no planning ahead when it comes to evolution.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It would be an example of Darwinism working against itself, wouldn't it?
    Not at all. Natural selection is not far sighted; natural selection really only takes into account relatively immediate effects on the reproductive success of individuals (in their offspring and maybe their grandoffspring). Something that is going to affect their great-great-great-great grandoffspring will not be selected against. Thus the example (which I think I have talked about before in this very thread) of animals over-specializing into certain niches and going extinct when that niche disappears. There is no planning ahead when it comes to evolution.
    That's a good reason not to treat Darwinistic laws as infallible when we apply them to society. Capitalism seems to have the same basic flaw. The market balances itself according to short term measurements of price, without looking ahead.

    Would Eugenics have an advantage in this respect, then, since it's possible for a planned process of selection to be based on foresight instead of hindsight?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    a planned process of selection to be based on foresight
    That's beginning to look like positive feedback. Darius said the aim is to be "more human". Echo chamber! As a rule, unchecked positive feedback leads to self destruction does it not?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Would Eugenics have an advantage in this respect, then, since it's possible for a planned process of selection to be based on foresight instead of hindsight?
    That's the idea; but it assumes, of course, that our predictions of the troubles humans will face in the future are correct and that we know the best way to change ourselves to handle those troubles.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's a good reason not to treat Darwinistic laws as infallible when we apply them to society.
    let's make one thing clear : Darwinism only applies within the sphere of natural history - any pretence that Darwinism can be extended into other realms (e.g. social darwinism) is an assumption too far

    then again, any successful scientific theory will have its piggy-backers who attempt to gain some reflected glory by proxy
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Would Eugenics have an advantage in this respect, then, since it's possible for a planned process of selection to be based on foresight instead of hindsight?
    That's the idea; but it assumes, of course, that our predictions of the troubles humans will face in the future are correct and that we know the best way to change ourselves to handle those troubles.
    I suppose the major advantage that a conscious process has is that we can look much further back into history than a purely biological process can. For example: even if our environment should become so sterile that our immune systems start to atrophy, a eugenicist could look back in time and remember that resistance to infection used to be very important in a far gone era, and react accordingly.

    Of course, he might turn out to be wrong. Maybe we never encounter an infection that would ever have threatened us.

    My main concern with natural evolution is that food intake tends to be a very important decision maker. If we regulate our population right, and do a good job of managing our farm lands, we shouldn't expect to benefit too much from that. It would be better to artificially force the selection process to do things like making us physically stronger, or increasing our IQ, or boosting our immune system, even if the result will be that everyone has a faster metabolism.

    And... if there is ever a nuclear holocaust, or it turns out that we're unable to send astronauts into space because of their increased food requirements..... then I will totally have egg on my face for saying that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    no matter which way you cut it, eugenics has and will always be in effect, on multiple levels, some more subtle than others

    societies(and the individuals within) have always had standards, and these standards have always been enforced one way or another, intentionally or otherwise
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Kojax,
    here are some questions for you.

    1) Would you agree that to implement a strategy of the type you are talking about would require a detailed understanding on the constraints and interactions related to human evolution?
    2) Would you agree that these factors would be more complex (perhaps an order of magnitude more complex) than the factors governing the global economy?
    3) Would you claim that we have done an outstanding job of predicting the consequences of our action in relation to the globale economy?
    4) In the light of what ought to have been your answer to these first three questions will you now abandon your silly idea and return to your normal level headed self?

    JG
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    no matter which way you cut it, eugenics has and will always be in effect, on multiple levels, some more subtle than others

    societies(and the individuals within) have always had standards, and these standards have always been enforced one way or another, intentionally or otherwise
    This is a really good point. If nothing else, Eugenics is always practiced on the level of mate selection. Women tend to be attracted to charismatic or wealthy men. Men tend to seek out physically healthy women. That can't all be natural instinct. Some of it has to be society constructed.

    There was an activist group on my campus who tried to popularize a notion they called "lookism" which is the idea that often men will unfairly ignore physically unattractive women. And the irony is that a lot of the girls giving out fliers were very attractive. (which tells you why I remember it so well )


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,
    here are some questions for you.

    1) Would you agree that to implement a strategy of the type you are talking about would require a detailed understanding on the constraints and interactions related to human evolution?
    2) Would you agree that these factors would be more complex (perhaps an order of magnitude more complex) than the factors governing the global economy?
    3) Would you claim that we have done an outstanding job of predicting the consequences of our action in relation to the globale economy?
    4) In the light of what ought to have been your answer to these first three questions will you now abandon your silly idea and return to your normal level headed self?

    JG
    Yeah. I agree with you. I wouldn't want to go 4th Reich, or anything. I just worry that the pendulum is swinging the other way. People who feel genetically inferior seem to make up for it by having large families, or voting for imbeciles to lead them (remembering back to the last president).

    It seems like people want to be measured by their effort instead of their accomplishments, because an effort-ocracy doesn't reward people for having any particular genetic structure, even if that structure makes them better able to accomplish things that are valued by our society.

    For example: everyone loves to say bad stuff about supermodels, because they're perceived as being lucky instead of hard working. Most of the requirements are genetic (bone structure, facial appearance, being at least 5'8" tall for girls...etc), which means most girls can't hope to ever be one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    We'll as a word de-evolution is a oxymoronic term. Your assuming evolution always leads to better, smarter, faster individuals. Whenever a species becomes very successful, and there arenít many pressures honing out certain features the genetic variety spreads out as much as possible. This happens inevitably. So say in the future there may be some great environmental change. That our prehistoric ancestors wouldn't survive. When the gene pool spreads out as much as possible thereís more of a chance of surviving members of the species. Also this wide spread variety of genes, many good many bad, helps lead to extremes on certain traits. Certainly most of our great minds in history wouldn't have a chance of surviving in ancient times. Think about it. Da vinci, Einstein and so many great artist/musicians and scientists wouldn't stand a chance in prehistoric times. Dreamers don't last long in the wild.

    Also Iíd like to say something about your comment claiming wolves are better adapted in everyway to domesticated dogs. This is very incorrect. Many dogs are very specifically adapted just like many humans. And if a cage match truly was a good test on the surviving capabilities of a species then wolves wouldn't stand a chance. Since there are many dogs that a wolf wouldn't stand the slightest chance of surviving a one of one encounter. Sense wolves are adapted to be good at surviving in the wild and work well in a pack. And many dogs are breed to protect cattle and people and are capable of taking on even multiple wolves.

    Though I do agree that it is a problem that the unintelligent tend to have many more kids than the intelligent, and that physical health it doesn't play much of a role anymore it certainly isnít the end of the world. And de-evolution certainly isnít the right word for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    dogs are better adapted to living in a human society than wolves.

    end story.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    dogs are better adapted to living in a human society than wolves.

    end story.
    Yes but because of that certain dogs are adapt at doin verying things much better then wolves. I fail to see what your point is here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Also Iíd like to say something about your comment claiming wolves are better adapted in everyway to domesticated dogs. This is very incorrect. Many dogs are very specifically adapted just like many humans. And if a cage match truly was a good test on the surviving capabilities of a species then wolves wouldn't stand a chance. Since there are many dogs that a wolf wouldn't stand the slightest chance of surviving a one of one encounter. Sense wolves are adapted to be good at surviving in the wild and work well in a pack. And many dogs are breed to protect cattle and people and are capable of taking on even multiple wolves.
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    dogs are better adapted to living in a human society than wolves.

    end story.
    Yes but because of that certain dogs are adapt at doin verying things much better then wolves. I fail to see what your point is here?
    The point is that dogs are better adapted at living in a human society. The first phase of the symbiosis between wolves and humans occurred probably through natural selection.

    That is the wolves that had a lessened flight reaction could use the resources found near a human settlement better.

    This was probably followed by a domestication phase where both species were domesticated together.

    This second part has been repeated with silver foxes by some ruskies. It only took a few generations to make foxes doglike.

    When trying to raise wolves in a domesticated setting researchers have found that the young wolf actually does pretty well when it is young. It pays attention to the human and does better than dogs on pointing tests, where humans point at a reward, and the subject has to find it.

    However, when wolves get older they stop paying attention to humans, i.e. they become what we would call 'restless'. They are not attuned any more to humans. This is different for dogs who have evolved to stay perfectly attuned to humans.

    And actually tests have shown they pay more attention to humans than to other dogs.

    Therefore dogs are highly evolved creatures, with very specialized functions of which the most important adaptation is the attunation to the human being.

    To insist that wolves are better adapted is silly. Wolves are adapted to do certain tasks better. They are however shit in the task that made the dog such an evolutionary winner.

    Let me remind you of an important fact. There are far more dogs on the world than wolves.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    So, arguing that wolves are fitter, comes of wishful thinking that this world is (or ought to be) Wolf World. On the other hand, I'll admit to arguing against it because I fancy Puppy Planet.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    both are adapted to an environment.

    it's just not the same one.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Also Iíd like to say something about your comment claiming wolves are better adapted in everyway to domesticated dogs. This is very incorrect. Many dogs are very specifically adapted just like many humans. And if a cage match truly was a good test on the surviving capabilities of a species then wolves wouldn't stand a chance. Since there are many dogs that a wolf wouldn't stand the slightest chance of surviving a one of one encounter. Sense wolves are adapted to be good at surviving in the wild and work well in a pack. And many dogs are breed to protect cattle and people and are capable of taking on even multiple wolves.
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.
    That's a long list of traits that have atrophied in order for domestic dogs to gain just one meaningful trait of being able to coexist peacefully with humans, and (in some cases) assist us in doing human things.

    I wonder how ordinary cells taken from the human body compare with their more "feral" counterparts, the single celled organisms out there. Maybe human society is just the next step up in that process. We all count as specialized "cells" in a more massive "organism" we call a society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    dogs are better adapted to living in a human society than wolves.

    end story.
    Yes but because of that certain dogs are adapt at doin verying things much better then wolves. I fail to see what your point is here?
    The point is that dogs are better adapted at living in a human society. The first phase of the symbiosis between wolves and humans occurred probably through natural selection.

    That is the wolves that had a lessened flight reaction could use the resources found near a human settlement better.

    This was probably followed by a domestication phase where both species were domesticated together.

    This second part has been repeated with silver foxes by some ruskies. It only took a few generations to make foxes doglike.

    When trying to raise wolves in a domesticated setting researchers have found that the young wolf actually does pretty well when it is young. It pays attention to the human and does better than dogs on pointing tests, where humans point at a reward, and the subject has to find it.

    However, when wolves get older they stop paying attention to humans, i.e. they become what we would call 'restless'. They are not attuned any more to humans. This is different for dogs who have evolved to stay perfectly attuned to humans.

    And actually tests have shown they pay more attention to humans than to other dogs.

    Therefore dogs are highly evolved creatures, with very specialized functions of which the most important adaptation is the attunation to the human being.

    To insist that wolves are better adapted is silly. Wolves are adapted to do certain tasks better. They are however shit in the task that made the dog such an evolutionary winner.

    Let me remind you of an important fact. There are far more dogs on the world than wolves.
    Your argueing my exact point. I was merely stating the difference in dog breed adaptation and wolves adaptation. I was just stating that wolves are more adapted to living in the wilderness than dogs. Well dogs have become very adapted at certain things living in a domestic enviorment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.[/quote]

    They are pretty damn near the food chain when it comes to dogs. But there are dog breed such as the Dogo argentino that where breed to hunt under even more extreme conditions than most wolves do. You have to remember both wolves and dogs are a product of there environment. Wolves are held to the size and strength that there environment can support. They are a product of natural selection and stay within the bounderies of that. Certain dogs have been selectively breed to amplify traits such as size, strength, speed and furiousity to level beyond that of wolves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius
    I think it's logically consistent if you look at it from the point of philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with purpose, and the purpose of evolution is within our power to define by eugenics. Philosophically, "evolution" can be taken to mean "improvement", and devolution to be the opposite thereof, based on comparisons between the two and their overall capability.

    Humans, in this sense, are devolving. Due to the new environment allowing us to be lax, humans of today would be unlikely to survive in prehistoric conditions. Indeed, evidence suggests we even have fewer muscle fibers than we did just 10,000 years ago. Evolution says "we don't need it", and in this environment we don't, but objectively this makes us inferior.

    I think it's also very worth noting that the most brilliant minds in history, that of Da Vinci and Socrates, haven't been reproduced (in any way close) for thousands of years. Indeed, we of the modern world have fewer polymaths of lesser capability than we did in more ancient times.

    In many ways, logically, the modern species is a pitiful and undisciplined version of its former self. This is why the philosophical concept of "devolution" is very important, because it grants humans the ability to objectively determine what they should be. Eugenics is truly the only way to reverse the damage that has been done.
    I am inclined to believe that evolution only occurred because the environments grew softer which allowed a greater variety of life to exist. The common ancestors always seem to make it no matter what holoccaust befalls the world. Extinction always seems to happen to the "higher species." One-celled creatures will still be around when multi-celled creatures perish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by Darius

    Philosophically, yes it is. Who wins a cage match is extremely important in deciding what traits are ultimately survivable. Wolves are actually much smarter than any domesticated dog breed,
    I think I see the problem. One could also argue that dogs are smarter than wolves because they have the good sense to stick with humans. That gives them an edge over wolves. The evolutionary winners are often surprising: the lowly mammals survived while the big strong dinosaurs became extinct.

    Therefore, the concept of de-evolution is rather subjective and assumes that natural selection is running some sort of eugenics program.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    dogs are better adapted to living in a human society than wolves.

    end story.
    Yes but because of that certain dogs are adapt at doin verying things much better then wolves. I fail to see what your point is here?
    The point is that dogs are better adapted at living in a human society. The first phase of the symbiosis between wolves and humans occurred probably through natural selection.

    That is the wolves that had a lessened flight reaction could use the resources found near a human settlement better.

    This was probably followed by a domestication phase where both species were domesticated together.

    This second part has been repeated with silver foxes by some ruskies. It only took a few generations to make foxes doglike.

    When trying to raise wolves in a domesticated setting researchers have found that the young wolf actually does pretty well when it is young. It pays attention to the human and does better than dogs on pointing tests, where humans point at a reward, and the subject has to find it.

    However, when wolves get older they stop paying attention to humans, i.e. they become what we would call 'restless'. They are not attuned any more to humans. This is different for dogs who have evolved to stay perfectly attuned to humans.

    And actually tests have shown they pay more attention to humans than to other dogs.

    Therefore dogs are highly evolved creatures, with very specialized functions of which the most important adaptation is the attunation to the human being.

    To insist that wolves are better adapted is silly. Wolves are adapted to do certain tasks better. They are however shit in the task that made the dog such an evolutionary winner.

    Let me remind you of an important fact. There are far more dogs on the world than wolves.
    Your argueing my exact point. I was merely stating the difference in dog breed adaptation and wolves adaptation. I was just stating that wolves are more adapted to living in the wilderness than dogs. Well dogs have become very adapted at certain things living in a domestic enviorment.
    Well, the coyote is doing much better than the wolf in the Americas. Therefore the coyote is the top dog in the wild.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    [quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"]
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey


    Well, the coyote is doing much better than the wolf in the Americas. Therefore the coyote is the top dog in the wild.
    Wolves where doing much better. Untill another preditor (us) starting to compete with them. Also many wolves where killed up untill recently just to avoid livestock kills. The species as a whole is doing fine tho. Considering dogs, wolves and coyotes are all the same species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    what about foxes, hyenas and jackals, are they part of the same species as dogs? Can they all mate? if the mood was right, of course...
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    [quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="spuriousmonkey"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey


    Well, the coyote is doing much better than the wolf in the Americas. Therefore the coyote is the top dog in the wild.
    Wolves where doing much better. Untill another preditor (us) starting to compete with them. Also many wolves where killed up untill recently just to avoid livestock kills. The species as a whole is doing fine tho. Considering dogs, wolves and coyotes are all the same species.


    It is general knowledge that coyotes and raccoons have thrived since the introduction of the European humans on the American continent. You are going to argue with general knowledge? Are you related to Don Quichote?
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    what about foxes, hyenas and jackals, are they part of the same species as dogs? Can they all mate? if the mood was right, of course...
    Actually Hyaenas are not even in the same family as dogs, but rather the family Hyaenidae which is closer to cats....

    Foxes are in the Canidae, but in a separate genus, Vulpes, and there are not valid reports of hybrids between the two genera.

    Jackels are in the Canis genus and can breed with others close species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    [quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"][quote="spuriousmonkey"][quote="Midgetmaid"]
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey




    It is general knowledge that coyotes and raccoons have thrived since the introduction of the European humans on the American continent. You are going to argue with general knowledge? Are you related to Don Quichote?
    When did I ever mention anything about welfare of coyotes or raccoons concerning the introduction of Euro humans on the continent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    You didn't. I did. Because you are being obtuse because you know you are wrong.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.
    The question is: are these traits really signs of evolutionary fitness? Most people think Darwinism tells us to be more like Lions and Tigers, because historically these were thought of as symbols of strength. But... how well they really stack up against humanity?

    In terms of physical strength, speed, and agility, lions and tigers have us beat hands (paws) down. Why do we win then? Could it be because those things don't really matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.
    The question is: are these traits really signs of evolutionary fitness? Most people think Darwinism tells us to be more like Lions and Tigers, because historically these were thought of as symbols of strength. But... how well they really stack up against humanity?

    In terms of physical strength, speed, and agility, lions and tigers have us beat hands (paws) down. Why do we win then? Could it be because those things don't really matter?
    Darwinism tells us to be all sorts of things. But Darwinism is 1) crap 2) not evolution. Evolution does not tell us to be anything. If we're going to anthropomorphise a natural process, it's kinda passive aggressive in that it just lets us do whatever to see what happens, and then reduces our chance of reproduction if we get it wrong in the very narrow context in which we exist.

    There's no foresight or plan in any of it, no absolute right or wrong and certainly no directives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Directive No.1

    Go forth and multiply
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You didn't. I did. Because you are being obtuse because you know you are wrong.
    lol i'm being obtuse huh? Your last post had nothing to do with what our entire conversation has been about and did nothing to address anything in my last post. You just seem set on keeping a endless debate going. Your whole point is completely blind of every other factor except current population levels. Of course coyotes and raccoons are doing fine. Hey sparrows are doing great to. Which has no relevance because they fall in a completely different ecological niche than humans, unlike wolves. This doesn't make them better adapted or "top dog" it just makes them different. But like i stated earlier they're all the SAME species. This just shows the success and adaptability of the canis lupus species in the current form of dogs, wolves and coyotes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'd love to see a source that says ANY domesticated dog is more powerful, vicious, sneaky, and quicker than a wolf. Last I checked, Wolves were pretty damn near the top of the food chain, killing horses and cattle at will, only being fended off by a guard dog.
    The question is: are these traits really signs of evolutionary fitness? Most people think Darwinism tells us to be more like Lions and Tigers, because historically these were thought of as symbols of strength. But... how well they really stack up against humanity?

    In terms of physical strength, speed, and agility, lions and tigers have us beat hands (paws) down. Why do we win then? Could it be because those things don't really matter?
    Darwinism tells us to be all sorts of things. But Darwinism is 1) crap 2) not evolution. Evolution does not tell us to be anything. If we're going to anthropomorphise a natural process, it's kinda passive aggressive in that it just lets us do whatever to see what happens, and then reduces our chance of reproduction if we get it wrong in the very narrow context in which we exist.

    There's no foresight or plan in any of it, no absolute right or wrong and certainly no directives.
    Evolution tells you to be whatever adapts you most to your environment. Right now, humans appear to be better adapted than Tigers or Lions, since humans are thriving, and the other two don't appear to be thriving much. A being conscious of their existence in an evolutionary system should want to adapt to tomorrow's environment even more than today's.

    Right now, the current trend is that physical strength adapts us less and less, while cooperation and the ability to reason seem to adapt us more and more. We can wait for evolution to gradually select out everything that doesn't match that criteria, or we can choose consciously to match ourselves to those traits, knowing they aren't going to be selected against. (There's no certainty, but we can bet with the odds, instead of against them.)

    So, while evolution may not have a direction in and of itself, (The environment gives the directions), it can be a useful source of direction. You can predict where it's going, and that tells you a lot about where you do or do not want to go.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You didn't. I did. Because you are being obtuse because you know you are wrong.
    lol i'm being obtuse huh? Your last post had nothing to do with what our entire conversation has been about and did nothing to address anything in my last post. You just seem set on keeping a endless debate going. Your whole point is completely blind of every other factor except current population levels. Of course coyotes and raccoons are doing fine. Hey sparrows are doing great to. Which has no relevance because they fall in a completely different ecological niche than humans, unlike wolves. This doesn't make them better adapted or "top dog" it just makes them different. But like i stated earlier they're all the SAME species. This just shows the success and adaptability of the canis lupus species in the current form of dogs, wolves and coyotes.
    Species is a funny concept. You can use the concept to understand what is going on in reality or you can use it to hide behind it.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You didn't. I did. Because you are being obtuse because you know you are wrong.
    lol i'm being obtuse huh? Your last post had nothing to do with what our entire conversation has been about and did nothing to address anything in my last post. You just seem set on keeping a endless debate going. Your whole point is completely blind of every other factor except current population levels. Of course coyotes and raccoons are doing fine. Hey sparrows are doing great to. Which has no relevance because they fall in a completely different ecological niche than humans, unlike wolves. This doesn't make them better adapted or "top dog" it just makes them different. But like i stated earlier they're all the SAME species. This just shows the success and adaptability of the canis lupus species in the current form of dogs, wolves and coyotes.
    While the species Canis lupus does contain both wolves and dogs, it is divided into a number of subspecies and it is more telling to look at how the subspecies are doing.

    this pair of charts shows the effect of humans on wild C. lupus

    Pre human expansion ranges:



    and modern ranges:



    All subspecies which inhabit areas occupied by humans in significant amounts has seed a decrease in range and/or gone extinct. No species subspecies has expanded except the domestic dog C. lupus familiaris

    NOTE:
    Coyotes are not the same species as dog and wolves they are the species Canis latrans. So using them to show success in C. lupus, is incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    30
    [quote="Paleoichneum"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Midgetmaid
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    You didn't. I did. Because you are being obtuse because you know you are wrong.

    While the species Canis lupus does contain both wolves and dogs, it is divided into a number of subspecies and it is more telling to look at how the subspecies are doing.

    this pair of charts shows the effect of humans on wild C. lupus

    Pre human expansion ranges:



    and modern ranges:



    All subspecies which inhabit areas occupied by humans in significant amounts has seed a decrease in range and/or gone extinct. No species subspecies has expanded except the domestic dog C. lupus familiaris

    NOTE:
    Coyotes are not the same species as dog and wolves they are the species Canis latrans. So using them to show success in C. lupus, is incorrect.
    Hey thanks for the charts. I agree with everything your saying. Tho i wasn't aware that coyotes were considered a different species. Tho after further research it seems rather semantics because coyotes can still breed with dogs, which in my thought would make them the same species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    can breed and do breed are different things.

    Coyotes have bred with wolves as well:

    http://spuriousforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7201
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    (double post)
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    direction
    Yeah, I agree evolution may have "foresight". That's pursuing archetypes in sex selection: the men who are manlier get the ladies; the roses that are rosier get pollinated, and so forth. Species tend towards extreme characteristics. You can take any species blunted by environmental pressures and predict how it would evolve further if it could.

    Coyotes are sexually unappealing to dogs because they're pursuing different archetypes.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •