Human, animals and Evolution.

[James MacGregor]

Maybe this is just an oversimplification on my part concerning the whole painful childbirth thing. But, my take on it is, that antelope is up and ready to go minutes after birth because the orderly in the bushes hasn't had a meal in days and just waiting for the chance to gnaw on her spleen. We don't tend to see a lot of cannabalistic interns wandering the halls of our fine medical profession. Sorry, spent way too much time watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom and Daktari when I was a kid.

 

[Lust Engine]

Awwww... you got me thinking Marlin Perkins, Stan Hart & Jim Fowler now.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

Marlin was always back behind a bush somewhere talking about how Jim was wrestling the crocodile~

 

[ReadyOne]

Evolution doesn't work like that.

As long as the offspring and the mother survive there's no evolutionary advantage to "Smarter->Larger Head->Larger Vagina". Equally true with penis size.

Evolution works on the theory "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Perhaps you don't remember the statistics about death in child birth before the doctors got involved.... Lots of mother died giving birth. There is an advantage to easy birthing.

If a mother dies birthing after her first child, the best contribution to the gene pool she can make is 1 child who may have the same problems.

If a mother does not die after her first child, then she can have another. And another. And put a lot of kids into the gene pool that may have her adaptions for non-fatal birthing.

OK...
1 bad vs 10 good in the first genereation.
2 bad vs 100 good in the second generation
3 bad vs 10000 good in the thrid generation.

See the pattern? This is how evolution can select. Evolution does work like that.

(1) I simplified; it isn't always the first birth that kills. Death in child birth is not necessarily any genetic factor such as vagina size. There are other ways to die before reproducing more offsping. But all that just slows the trend a bit, not freezing it.

(2) Forget what I said about a penis; I wanted to discuss mothers brithing, not getting pregnant.

(3) Evolution does fix what's not broke Random dominante mutations occur and "go along for the ride" with other genetic material without being specifically selected for.

(4) The best answer I've heard to the problem I proposed is the discussion about brain/head size being so much an advantage that it will keep pushing birthing problems to the limit. Thanks CasusCoiti.

 

[lost5pints]

So they finally have some evidence on that stacking theory... I dont know how much i buy it, i mean.. Think of those primates. The larger testes came because of the promiscuity in their groups, not vice versa.

The way i look at it, things like testicle size, the evolutionary behaviors of men and women in groups, hair eye and skin colors, cosmetic sexual characteristics, those things are the slow grind of evolution, constantly working....currently humans have a HUGE gene pool, with almost no stresses (things that end life or reproductive ability)....the only way to force fast mass adaptation is to introduce a culling, an environmental stress that depletes said pool of people without some characteristic that makes them more likely to reproduce and push their genetic profile for another generation.

thats why sex makes the world go round.

D

Unfortunatly due to the proliferation of modern medical science in the 1st and second world countries. The only culling we get after reproduction is either basic human stupidity or viruses and infections that are so potent that doctores cant cure (ie ebola, hemmoragic fever, aids, sars to name a few.) Sometimes i think that these super bugs popup as some kind of hint that we need a little better population contro on the earth.

 

[Blindinthedark]

Perhaps you don't remember the statistics about death in child birth before the doctors got involved.... Lots of mother died giving birth. There is an advantage to easy birthing.

If a mother dies birthing after her first child, the best contribution to the gene pool she can make is 1 child who may have the same problems.

If a mother does not die after her first child, then she can have another. And another. And put a lot of kids into the gene pool that may have her adaptions for non-fatal birthing.

OK...
1 bad vs 10 good in the first genereation.
2 bad vs 100 good in the second generation
3 bad vs 10000 good in the thrid generation.

See the pattern? This is how evolution can select. Evolution does work like that.

(1) I simplified; it isn't always the first birth that kills. Death in child birth is not necessarily any genetic factor such as vagina size. There are other ways to die before reproducing more offsping. But all that just slows the trend a bit, not freezing it.

(2) Forget what I said about a penis; I wanted to discuss mothers brithing, not getting pregnant.

(3) Evolution does fix what's not broke Random dominante mutations occur and "go along for the ride" with other genetic material without being specifically selected for.

(4) The best answer I've heard to the problem I proposed is the discussion about brain/head size being so much an advantage that it will keep pushing birthing problems to the limit. Thanks CasusCoiti.

We were both trying to over-simplify the problem.
When I said “if it ain't broke, don't fix it” I meant that evolution has a tendency to keep patterns that’s it has already developed provided that there is little environmental change.

You’re right that the death rate for mothers and children during birth was higher before doctors and midwifes. Those that did die have already been naturally selected out leaving us with our current situation. They no longer have an effect on our evolution now. And now with modern medicine many that would have previously died survive. Successes in the Darwinian sense though technically they are still maladapted.

Mutations do happen and will usually survive if they have a neutral or positive effect on the individuals survival. Mutations with a negative effect will either result in the death of the offspring or lower their reproductive success. Overall it means that these negative mutations will be “bred” out unless it becomes selectively advantageous later on. Mutations on the recessive gene have a better survivability factor in that the offspring will show the phenotypic traits of the dominant gene.

 

[crazybbwgirl]

You'd better check that infant mortality rate. If I remember correctly US had a very high rate back when I was pregnant (20 yrs. ago) We were one of the highest non-third world nations.

 

[Lust Engine]

Marlin was always back behind a bush somewhere talking about how Jim was wrestling the crocodile~

Wasn't it Stan who would run barefoot out into the Serengeti to wrassle down the antelope trapped in the netting or something like that??

And does anyone remember Mr. Modo, the chimpanzee that hung with Marlin every now & then at the beginning of the show??

(inadvertant hijack- please don't follow!)

 

[CollegeGuy19]

Unfortunatly due to the proliferation of modern medical science in the 1st and second world countries. The only culling we get after reproduction is either basic human stupidity or viruses and infections that are so potent that doctores cant cure (ie ebola, hemmoragic fever, aids, sars to name a few.) Sometimes i think that these super bugs popup as some kind of hint that we need a little better population contro on the earth.

Ah...from a biological perspective, I have to disagree with you there. If your hypothesis was correct, we should be seeing a population explosion in the First and Second world as medical science decreases infant and child mortality. Instead, you see the opposite- most European countries are actually undergoing a population contraction, and while the U.S. is still growing, the rate of growth is slowing. Meanwhile, some of the fastest rates of growth are in countries such as India and China, which don't have very good medical care except in a few urban centers.

The fact of the matter is that decent medical care is one of the best ways to check population growth out there- by and large, if you increase the odds of a child surviving to adulthood, the parents react by having less children- i.e., with modern medicine, you don't have to have 8-10 children in order to assure that at least some of them will survive to take care of you when you're older. When infant and child mortality rates drop, you tend to see a lot more people choosing to have 2-3 child families, which are easier to support and generally a lot more attractive if disease rates are low enough. If a couple has two children, there's no net population growth there- they're just replaced themselves. If they have three, that's still growth, but very slow.

Admittedly, going to flat growth doesn't help if you're already overpopulated, but at least the problem stops growing while you try to figure out a solution.

[/soapbox]

 

[CollegeGuy19]

Maybe this is just an oversimplification on my part concerning the whole painful childbirth thing. But, my take on it is, that antelope is up and ready to go minutes after birth because the orderly in the bushes hasn't had a meal in days and just waiting for the chance to gnaw on her spleen.

All depends on your prespective. Yeah, having that bulging monkey brain makes having children more difficult and increases the probability that you'll get eaten by a leopard while you're giving birth. On the other hand, said brain also makes it possible for you to make pointy sticks to defend yourself from said leopard, clothes to increase the probability of the kid surviving, and ultimately hospitals and a medical profession so that the only thing that might eat you after childbirth is your HMO.

It's all tradeoffs.

 

[lost5pints]

Ah...from a biological perspective, I have to disagree with you there. If your hypothesis was correct, we should be seeing a population explosion in the First and Second world as medical science decreases infant and child mortality. Instead, you see the opposite- most European countries are actually undergoing a population contraction, and while the U.S. is still growing, the rate of growth is slowing. Meanwhile, some of the fastest rates of growth are in countries such as India and China, which don't have very good medical care except in a few urban centers.

The fact of the matter is that decent medical care is one of the best ways to check population growth out there- by and large, if you increase the odds of a child surviving to adulthood, the parents react by having less children- i.e., with modern medicine, you don't have to have 8-10 children in order to assure that at least some of them will survive to take care of you when you're older. When infant and child mortality rates drop, you tend to see a lot more people choosing to have 2-3 child families, which are easier to support and generally a lot more attractive if disease rates are low enough. If a couple has two children, there's no net population growth there- they're just replaced themselves. If they have three, that's still growth, but very slow.

Admittedly, going to flat growth doesn't help if you're already overpopulated, but at least the problem stops growing while you try to figure out a solution.

[/soapbox]

What i intended to say id that the super bug type illnesses are developing the third world countries. The destructive effect on the population in these places definatly seems togo with the large unchecked population growth. Our modern medicine is doing little to nothing to be able to stop these short of quarentene or heavy amounts of education in an attempt to prevent contraction. Now me comment with regards to stupidity was implying that the overall natural selection process doent work half the time and the infant/child mortality rate is good enough in the second and third world that a massive number of people who shouldnt live are making it to adulthood(personnal opinion.) Our western society has more monsters an predators among its population than you can shake a stick at. Take a look at the local sex crime offenders listing and keep in mind that for every one of those that are caught there could be three or more out there. Not to mention violent crime and general apathy among masses in the US. As a socirty we have all the facets to become a utopia. instead we seem to dwell farther into decadence than most any other society in history. I do my best not to feel depressed when i think of how it was just 20 years ago when i was groing up. It makes me worry about what my sons children will have to live through.

 

[CollegeGuy19]

What i intended to say id that the super bug type illnesses are developing the third world countries. The destructive effect on the population in these places definatly seems togo with the large unchecked population growth. Our modern medicine is doing little to nothing to be able to stop these short of quarentene or heavy amounts of education in an attempt to prevent contraction. Now me comment with regards to stupidity was implying that the overall natural selection process doent work half the time and the infant/child mortality rate is good enough in the second and third world that a massive number of people who shouldnt live are making it to adulthood(personnal opinion.) Our western society has more monsters an predators among its population than you can shake a stick at. Take a look at the local sex crime offenders listing and keep in mind that for every one of those that are caught there could be three or more out there. Not to mention violent crime and general apathy among masses in the US. As a socirty we have all the facets to become a utopia. instead we seem to dwell farther into decadence than most any other society in history. I do my best not to feel depressed when i think of how it was just 20 years ago when i was groing up. It makes me worry about what my sons children will have to live through.

There's definately a correlation between large, unchecked population growth and disease, although I would argue that we haven't really been hit by a "super bug" yet, with the possible exception of HIV. Unfortunately, for the reasons I outlined in my last post, the places with the highest rates of population growth tend to have the worst health care infrastructures, which makes dealing with these diseases problematic.

As for "modern medicine" dealing with diseases- right now it's not too effective, but I wouldn't give up hope just yet. There wasn't any vaccine for rabies, polio, or malaria for years, but they got one eventually. The problem is that we don't really understand these new disease agents that well yet- keep in mind that HIV has been identified for only about twenty years now, and the SARS virus (if that's what's really causing it; there are some doubts) for only a few weeks. It's just that the diseases that tend to make the news are all new ones that aren't that well understood yet- for example, one of the reasons there is currently no Ebola vaccine is that out of seven proteins that make up the Ebola virus, we have no clue what four of them do. When we figure that out, maybe we'll get someplace.

As for your other comment...you're assuming that bad health care kills a disproportionate number of people who would later become criminals or sex offenders, something I find a little shaky. Lower infant mortality means more Jeffrey Dahmers, but it also means more Richard Feynmans and Johannes Salks. If you think our culture's going down the tube, and I don't necessarily disagree, you might want to look elsewhere for a cause.

 

[lost5pints]

As for your other comment...you're assuming that bad health care kills a disproportionate number of people who would later become criminals or sex offenders, something I find a little shaky. Lower infant mortality means more Jeffrey Dahmers, but it also means more Richard Feynmans and Johannes Salks. If you think our culture's going down the tube, and I don't necessarily disagree, you might want to look elsewhere for a cause.

I apologize for ranting a little there. Combincation of having to deal with scum all night long lack of sleep and my better half being in Pennsylvania. You are correct about the good people that are born and in general they achieve more than 10 of the monsters our society breeds could ever destroy. I love my job and will continue doing my part until I am no longer capable weather by remaining in the military or as a civilian. I just hate seeing the kind of people that get released from jail every day and most go right back in. Please EVERYBODY dont let my snippity comments stop you from posting. Have a good day. time to go play litirati with my wife on yahoo.

 

[Guest]

I apologize for ranting a little there. Combincation of having to deal with scum all night long lack of sleep and my better half being in Pennsylvania. You are correct about the good people that are born and in general they achieve more than 10 of the monsters our society breeds could ever destroy.

so would the answer be to test a persons DNA when they are born to see if they are likely to commit crimes? Sounds like Gattica. But, in a way, it seems like a great way to protect society.

 

[lost5pints]

so would the answer be to test a persons DNA when they are born to see if they are likely to commit crimes? Sounds like Gattica. But, in a way, it seems like a great way to protect society.

Actually i would be happy if they just had a stronger disciplinary/punishment program for violent/sexual criminals. I believe some of the theories that a predisposition for crime is genetic. But i feel that a persons envinroment they are raised, in parenting enviroment education all are major contributing factors. But in the end the worst criminals come from all walks of life and all backgrounds.

 

[CollegeGuy19]

Actually i would be happy if they just had a stronger disciplinary/punishment program for violent/sexual criminals. I believe some of the theories that a predisposition for crime is genetic. But i feel that a persons envinroment they are raised, in parenting enviroment education all are major contributing factors. But in the end the worst criminals come from all walks of life and all backgrounds.

Hey, first of all, I hope you didn't think that any of what I said was in any way personal. I understand how stressful life can be sometimes, especially since you're in the Service at a time like this. And while I'm on the subject- thank you and all your comrades for defending our country and our freedom.

Genetic testing for a crime? I'm not a fan- FYI, the current consensus among scientists (not supported by any real data, but it's what you get if you ask nine out of ten human geneticists) is that the average split is 60/40 environment and genes. In other words, a gene can make you more likely to be an alchoholic, a child abuser, a great musician, or a scientist, but it's ultimately the environment that you're raised in that's going to determine a lot of those things.

 

[lost5pints]

Hey, first of all, I hope you didn't think that any of what I said was in any way personal. I understand how stressful life can be sometimes, especially since you're in the Service at a time like this. And while I'm on the subject- thank you and all your comrades for defending our country and our freedom.

Genetic testing for a crime? I'm not a fan- FYI, the current consensus among scientists (not supported by any real data, but it's what you get if you ask nine out of ten human geneticists) is that the average split is 60/40 environment and genes. In other words, a gene can make you more likely to be an alchoholic, a child abuser, a great musician, or a scientist, but it's ultimately the environment that you're raised in that's going to determine a lot of those things.

I dont take anything i read on a board personal. Well seeing how the records of all serviceman will soon be open to the law enforcment agencies of the world i have to agree. I have no problem with DNA comparison with evidence. But testing for bad genes is fascist to the extreme. I would never wish that kind of invasion on anyone. If we had better social programs and better ways of detecting child abuse and other key triggers in a childs enviroment we at large will be going far closer to a perfect society. I was refering to the same theories(60/40 enviroment/genes) with my prior statement.

 

[dollface007]

.

 

[dollface007]

You'd better check that infant mortality rate. If I remember correctly US had a very high rate back when I was pregnant (20 yrs. ago) We were one of the highest non-third world nations.

Just to follow up your post, CRAZY, the U.S. still has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, with certain subpopulations (i.e., African Americans) having significantly higher infant mortality than others.

I also wanted to say that, while i don't believe in forced population control, i do believe that we need BETTER WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE throughout the developing world (and the developed world, for that matter). The availability of women's health care (along with education and ALOT of other things) is highly related to birth rates, and, averaging 7-8 children per woman (as in places like Afghanistan and Northern Africa) creates huge problems for individuals as well as societies as a whole. I don't normally get really political, but I just wanted to mention that George W. took away international funding for womens health care (b/c these health care providers could potentially provide abortions) the minute he got into office. This put alot of women's lives in jeopardy and keeps birth rates in developing nations up. My point is, if women in any society enjoy higher status, socially and health-wise, the society will be in better shape than otherwise.

P.S. Great discussion!!!

 

[Noneyabizness]

I feel sorry for women and have respect for tem becaus of the pin they go through when they give birth.

I get kidney stones every so offen and they are very painfull just imagine when you pull velcro apart that is what happens to me the kidney stones have sharp spikes on them and they tear while pashing through the system for me it takes 8 hours if it was not for pain pills i would want to die.

To all women take care.

I have something called Pancreatitis. My Drs. have all told me this condition is the most painful there is...far worse than childbirth. As soon as I heard this, I asked them to tie my tubes!!!!

Seriously, EE said it best. Although I've not had a child, the one thing about childbirth that you don't get with illnesses such as kidney stones, pancreatitis, etc., is a beautiful child. I've heard from all of my friends that have had children that labor and delivery is painful, but when you see your child for the first time, any pain you may have felt, is completely gone.

Of course there are a select few that don't feel any pain with labor and delivery. One of my friends was 5 and 6 cm dilated (has two children) when she was sent to the hospital (didn't feel herself dilating!), and within two hours had her children. Maybe she also forgot all of the pain...............

 

[CollegeGuy19]

Just to follow up your post, CRAZY, the U.S. still has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world, with certain subpopulations (i.e., African Americans) having significantly higher infant mortality than others.

I also wanted to say that, while i don't believe in forced population control, i do believe that we need BETTER WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE throughout the developing world (and the developed world, for that matter). The availability of women's health care (along with education and ALOT of other things) is highly related to birth rates, and, averaging 7-8 children per woman (as in places like Afghanistan and Northern Africa) creates huge problems for individuals as well as societies as a whole. I don't normally get really political, but I just wanted to mention that George W. took away international funding for womens health care (b/c these health care providers could potentially provide abortions) the minute he got into office. This put alot of women's lives in jeopardy and keeps birth rates in developing nations up. My point is, if women in any society enjoy higher status, socially and health-wise, the society will be in better shape than otherwise.

P.S. Great discussion!!!

Agreed, but I'd like to amend "better women's health care" to " better health care"- period. Teaching women about contraception, and the idea that they can choose when to have children, is part of it- but they're not going to make the choice to limit childbirth unless they have some kind of certainty that said children will make it to adulthood. It's a big challenge.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

So I found this thread from 2003 and it seems like the past 22ish years have added some relevant information.... I cannot do it now so I'll let others have a go but if no one else does I'll get back to it

 

[Pad_Foot]

Yeah.. our women face a higher mortality rate for childbirth. Odds are kids too!

 

[big_cane_sugar]

So first of all I'm surprised this thread is in the "How to" section. Maybe because it's intended as a baby step in "how to" understand human nature and behavior?

The first thing I'd emphasize in addressing the OP's question is that the cognitive and social world of a human individual is simply massive compared to any other species. It takes a human being at least two decades to become a truly competent member of a community of adults, and some individuals simply never achieve it.

Those decades of development have a lot of stuff going on. A lot of trial and error as a person's neurons and genes figure out what kind of body they happen to find themselves in, how the environment (including other people) are going to treat them if they do this or that or another thing, what their best strategy for survival and reproduction is going to be.

I'd also emphasize that conscious awareness and calculation can only be a very small part of that development. Anything like high quality introspection comes along far too late to be useful for a lot of development, and there is a lot of evidence that we just don't know very much about what is going on inside our minds, and much of what we think is going on is actually an illusion.

The relevance of this to the OP is that no one's behavior, regardless of sex or gender identity, is going to be super-strongly tied to genes. Very few genes can have any idea in advance about what kind of body they're going to find themselves inside in a particular generation. For example, half of my genes were in my mother's body in the previous generation, and a quarter were in her father's body before that, and an eighth were in my great-grandmother's body, and so on. My great-grandmother was a short little skinny lady who survived famine-like conditions and married at 18 and had about a dozen kids; one of her sons, my grandfather, went to war, spent his life in the military and then in other professions that valued masculine toughness and courage and willingness to commit violence; I won't say much about my mother or myself except that our lives have also been very different from theirs and from each other's. The point of this is that one-eighth of my genes have had to figure out how to get through life in four very different bodies and environments. Big families, small families, loving families, abusive families, starvation, plenty, lots of deadly violence, almost no violence, et cetera....

What has to happen in every generation (in humans) is that the genes build a huge powerful brain and give it many years to figure out whether it's in an attractive body or not, an imposing body or not, a supportive environment or not, an environment that values violent aggression or one that punishes it, and so on. It has to figure out how to lie as well as possible, how to detect lying as well as possible, who to cooperate with, how to negotiate with someone they don't trust, what kind of reputation they want and how to get that kind of reputation.

The psycho-sexual development goes on at the same time, and it's worth reflecting that biologically the simple male/female dichotomy is not always true. Someone might have a certain kind of genitals but not produce much of the expected sex hormone, or produce the hormone but some of their cells might not have the expected receptors for the hormone to bind to. Someone might be a chimera, with a body that is about half one sex and about half the other. And so on.

But even when things are simple and binary, the individual's neurons and genes still have to figure out what kind of male or female body they're in, what kind of environment, what strategies are likely to work best for them. If you're a gene that could encourage more aggressive behavior and you get a signal that you're in a big imposing male body, turn on and work hard. If you find out that you're in a body that is going to need to be savvier, maybe even turn all the way off. If you're in an environment that is dangerous, get ready to turn on. If you're in a safer environment, don't be too eager to cause problems the rest of the genes in your current body aren't prepared to solve.

The unpredictability (from the gene's POV as of conception) of human social environments means that the genes have to be ready to build minds capable of a very wide range of attitudes and behaviors.

That's really the biggest difference between humans and other animals. A female polar bear's genes or a male penguin's genes can make a lot more assumptions because they don't depend nearly as much on cooperation with individuals who might betray them.

This is where I would start because if we move on from here and start discussing things like how does having a uterus affect your life strategy and beliefs and behaviors, we just have to constantly bear in mind that a lot depends on what seems to be going on with the rest of the body and what kind of social environment the body with that uterus is in. One body with a uterus could have a very different situation than her sister, and the brain is going to be figuring that out during development, and all later beliefs and behaviors will be affected (although not necessarily "determined") by those environments and experiences.