Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Evolution Thoughts


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Evolution Thoughts Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/19/2006 9:54:36 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		A Luddite is someone who opposes technological progress.  The original Luddites were English workers who began by destroying textile machines that affected their jobs, and eventually were taking on (and sometimes even defeating) the British army in pitched battles.  The movement lasted from 1811 to 1813.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl

Dunno who luddites are and i'm not in the mood to go figure it out.

(in reply to RiotGirl)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/19/2006 10:02:23 PM   
RiotGirl


Posts: 3149
Status: offline
quote:

Because things like large female breasts in humans, large tailfeathers in many species of birds, and so on, are not adaptations to environment. In fact, many peculiarities like these IMPEDE a creature's chances of survival. But the creatures survive anyway, because they have adapted to their environment well ENOUGH to survive. That's all you need. No teleology, no perfection.


Most creatures that give birth like we do (momentarily forgot the term) have some sort of "breast"  ever seen a cows utters?  Some process to feed the young.  It is quite a natural thing to be able to feed the young.  i dont think it "evolved", well granted it did at some point if you want to think that we started as a micro organism.  A single cell that evolved.  All creatures that give live birth have some sort of "breast"  Cows just have one large boob with 8 nipples hanging from it

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/19/2006 10:06:12 PM   
RiotGirl


Posts: 3149
Status: offline
quote:

A Luddite is someone who opposes technological progress. The original Luddites were English workers who began by destroying textile machines that affected their jobs, and eventually were taking on (and sometimes even defeating) the British army in pitched battles. The movement lasted from 1811 to 1813.


oh well.  i suppose i could broadly consider myself a Luddite = )  As i do oppose any more technological advances.  i think it will only ultimately destroy us and our fore fathers of the 1600's and what not had it right.  Look at the earth now.  Eons ago the earth was able to really support us.  These days we have to craft ways to support ourselves.  Water is so polluted we need water plants and what not.  To clean it.  Honestly, i hope that eventually some major catastrophe will happen, destroying civilization as we know it, our technology, ect.  So we'll have to start back at the begining, but able to be wise enough to know what to do different and also to give the earth a small amount of time to heal before we start to destroy it again.

Personally i think the Native Americans had it right.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 2:53:24 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl

Most creatures that give birth like we do (momentarily forgot the term) have some sort of "breast".

Those organs are also called mammaries. Hence we call species that have them mammals. Hence birth mothers are also called mamma, mam, ma and mom.

(in reply to RiotGirl)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:15:14 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Human females have breasts that are much larger than necessary for suckling (and also much larger, relative to their body size, than those of other primates).  An interesting book about things like this is Geoffrey F. Miller, The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature (New York, 2000).

quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl

quote:

Because things like large female breasts in humans, large tailfeathers in many species of birds, and so on, are not adaptations to environment. In fact, many peculiarities like these IMPEDE a creature's chances of survival. But the creatures survive anyway, because they have adapted to their environment well ENOUGH to survive. That's all you need. No teleology, no perfection.


Most creatures that give birth like we do (momentarily forgot the term) have some sort of "breast"  ever seen a cows utters?  Some process to feed the young.  It is quite a natural thing to be able to feed the young.  i dont think it "evolved", well granted it did at some point if you want to think that we started as a micro organism.  A single cell that evolved.  All creatures that give live birth have some sort of "breast"  Cows just have one large boob with 8 nipples hanging from it


(in reply to RiotGirl)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:26:30 AM   
redpetals


Posts: 229
Joined: 6/27/2005
Status: offline 		Breast size has nothing to do with milk production..The fact that some women have larger breasts than others is pretty simply showing us that humans are now and always have been varied in their personal tastes...otherwise all women would have teeny breasts or all women would have huge breasts.The more attractive of our species are the ones more often chosen to breed familys with.Before you poo poo this THINK about it..

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:29:37 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RiotGirl
Most creatures that give birth like we do (momentarily forgot the term) have some sort of "breast"  ever seen a cows utters?

Udders, RG!  'utters' would be mooing sounds under their breath, not something I think you were trying to get across.

quote:


Cows just have one large boob with 8 nipples hanging from it

most usually 4, but it is not rare to see 3 and sometimes 5.

However, they are proportionate to that which they feed... considering a sucking calf can go from 150-500+ pounds, you gotta squirt some milk. Need a pretty decent bag (thats what it's called).  Swine, who are in the 6-8 tit range are proportionate as well.  Their babies run in the 1-10 pound range, just like humans. Next time you go to the fair, see if you can see a hog tit.  What Lam is saying here, and rightly so... is a woman, if only using tits as a docking mechanism for sucklers could get by on pig tits.  Anything else is embroidery. And we as men, are much taken that this is so. 

Ron 

 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to RiotGirl)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:41:21 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Even relatively small breasts in humans are much larger than necessary for suckling.  So, yes, while I agree with you that breasts display human variety, they're ALL larger than what you'd find in, say, a gorilla.

There are a few theories about adaptive purposes that large breasts might serve, but I really don't find any of them convincing.  (Storing fat, for example--but that's a highly inefficient way to store fat.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: redpetals

Breast size has nothing to do with milk production..The fact that some women have larger breasts than others is pretty simply showing us that humans are now and always have been varied in their personal tastes...otherwise all women would have teeny breasts or all women would have huge breasts.The more attractive of our species are the ones more often chosen to breed familys with.Before you poo poo this THINK about it..

(in reply to redpetals)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:46:58 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Even relatively small breasts in humans are much larger than necessary for suckling.  So, yes, while I agree with you that breasts display human variety, they're ALL larger than what you'd find in, say, a gorilla.

There are a few theories about adaptive purposes that large breasts might serve, but I really don't find any of them convincing.  (Storing fat, for example--but that's a highly inefficient way to store fat.)

My pet issue of late is the female orgasm- what evolutionary purpose does it serve?  It doesn't attract a mate, and it doesn't help in conception or survival of offspring as far as we can tell.  Is it just a biological relic that will eventually become extinct?

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 10:29:28 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It is there to make you wanna do the nasty again and again.

LOL,
Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 11:02:57 AM   
DGirl


Posts: 5
Joined: 9/22/2005
Status: offline 		 We will not lose the female orgasm because that is not how evolution works. You dont get or lose traits according to needs. You get traits through mutation then, if it helps you survive in your environment, then you get to reproduce more and spread the trait more. That is how it works - simply put. However, humans do not have to "evolve". We may get mutations (which 99.9999% of the time are negative - birth defects for instance) but because of our intelligence and ability to adapt through technology, it will not really cause us to evolve as a species. Read it in any evolutionary biology  or anthropology book.
Hope that sheds some light.

_____________________________

Wouldn't it be nice if closed minds came with closed mouths?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 11:08:42 AM   
SweetDommes


Posts: 3313
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

My pet issue of late is the female orgasm- what evolutionary purpose does it serve?  It doesn't attract a mate, and it doesn't help in conception or survival of offspring as far as we can tell.  Is it just a biological relic that will eventually become extinct?


Actually, there have been studies that have shown a higher conception rate when the female orgasms.  The hormones released during and immediately after ogasm can stimulate ovulation - either early, or again (if she recently ovulated).  And as we all know, having an egg or two floating around makes it far more likely that one will be fertilized than if they are all still in the ovaries.

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 11:09:58 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DGirl
You dont get or lose traits according to needs. You get traits through mutation then, if it helps you survive in your environment, then you get to reproduce more and spread the trait more. That is how it works - simply put.

That's how new traits get shoved into the gene pool.

Whether the genes become prolific, or die out is largely due to how useful it is in surviving to the next generation.  Unuseful genes don't NECESSARILY become extinct, but it sure isn't a good sign of its continuation.

quote:

 However, humans do not have to "evolve". We may get mutations (which 99.9999% of the time are negative - birth defects for instance) but because of our intelligence and ability to adapt through technology, it will not really cause us to evolve as a species. Read it in any evolutionary biology  or anthropology book.
Hope that sheds some light.

Evolution isn't about HAVING to do something or not- it either does or it doesn't.  And the technology we have now that has only existed for less than a hundred years can hardly be shown to have ANY effect on our evolutionary progress.  And I don't think humans are at the point where our genes will stop mutating.  I don't think we're anywhere close to the stability of environment or genetics that creatures like sharks and cockroaches have.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to DGirl)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 1:26:30 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Even relatively small breasts in humans are much larger than necessary for suckling.  So, yes, while I agree with you that breasts display human variety, they're ALL larger than what you'd find in, say, a gorilla.

There are a few theories about adaptive purposes that large breasts might serve, but I really don't find any of them convincing.  (Storing fat, for example--but that's a highly inefficient way to store fat.)

My pet issue of late is the female orgasm- what evolutionary purpose does it serve?  It doesn't attract a mate, and it doesn't help in conception or survival of offspring as far as we can tell.  Is it just a biological relic that will eventually become extinct?


I'd think because it'd make the woman less resistant to being screwed. Leading to a greater number of births. Also when a woman orgasms it causes contractions of sorts that pull the sperm up further into the womb. So, it would help the spermies out. Women are more likely to orgasm and become sexually  aroused if they are attracted to their partner. So, the more attracted a woman is the greater chance of orgasm which leads to a involuntary contractions pulling spermies up, and increasing odds of conception. A womans orgasm is much greater if the male is viewed to be physically attractive (geneticly superior). So your orgasm to some degree is a acknowlegment of being suitable for breeding. Makes sense to me, I saw a discovery channel show about sexual attraction, and women hooked up to machines that measure brain activity are way more likely to orgasm and become more sexually aroused at the site of a typically geneticly suitable partner(symmetric and even visually seeing a larger penis even causes involuntary sexual arisal despite the controversy). So, not orgasming is as much your body rejecting his sperm, as orgasm is your body wanting it to fertilize.

I wonder why guys want women to orgasm? To not orgasm is the body rejecting us.

Of course there are other emotional reasons but at the basic levels that's part of it anyway.

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 1:41:26 PM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		That makes the most sense to me.  And, yes, there are studies that show a higher conception rate associated with orgasm; and I'm pretty sure there are studies showing no link whatsoever.  I don't think anyone has figured out "why" women have orgasms.  The fact that the clitoris is made of the same tissue as the penis might have something to do with it; few people wonder why males need to ejaculate, so maybe orgasms among females are just a by-product of the fact that males have orgasms.

Another possibility is that female orgasms might not really have anything to do with conception at all.  Having an orgasm is about sexual release, which can bring about things like bonding with partners (of either sex), psychological well-being, and so on.  That's more or less how it works among bonobos.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

It is there to make you wanna do the nasty again and again.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 1:50:08 PM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline 		I haven't seen any clear hard evidence that female orgasms actually contribute to pro-creation or survival.  Do you have specific hard cites?

Like most evolutionary debates, there's no clear case one way or the other- only time will tell whether it will continue to be selected or not, whether it's through necessity to keep it or just through plain no reason to lose it luck.



_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/20/2006 9:56:01 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		It's been awhile since I saw that show. I'm a documentary junkie don't remeber the name of it,  I'll try to dig up something on it though.

Thanks.

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/21/2006 8:01:04 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
I haven't seen any clear hard evidence that female orgasms actually contribute to pro-creation or survival.  Do you have specific hard cites?

Like most evolutionary debates, there's no clear case one way or the other- only time will tell whether it will continue to be selected or not, whether it's through necessity to keep it or just through plain no reason to lose it luck.


A trait like this, already distributed species wide, has essentially already been selected for, it wouldn't go away unless it were actively detimental - it isn't or it probobly wouldn't be there to begin with. Further, I believe that primates in general are capable of orgasm, female as well as male, and it clearly serves some evolutionary purpose - very few traits are entirely gratuitous, and these don't tend to be related to internal physiology or neurology.

I think I mentioned back way back in the Gorean discussion, Elaine Mogans The Descent of Woman, which has some interesting observations and speculations on female sexuality, a subject oversimplified or neglected by other thinkers on the subject - there are dozens of theories on breasts and why men are attracted to them, very few researchers even mention the female orgasm, and traditionally, it's been to dismiss it - ala Freuds "immature" vaginal orgasm.

If nothing else, Morgan frames the issue w/respect to the salient facts: number one, unlike other primates we became bipedal at some point - this entails some fairly dramatic changes to pelvic anatomy - Apes - with the possible exception of Bonobos, do it doggie style, and the primate vagina is angled to make that convenient. The angle of Womens Vaginas varies considerably - for some ventral is more comfortable than dorsal and vice versa.

The key point there is, change the pelvis and you change the angle, and this is going to cause some confusion in an organism where sexual behavior is regulated primarily by instinctual, or largely hardwired behavioral traits.

The next difference is, women don't go into estrus, like all other mammals do, and here is another profound difference, and again, related to a loss of basic instinctual behaviors - it may be, and probobly is, related to the first, the change to a bipedal stance - at some point the "program", i.e., go into estrus and bend over - just didn't work anymore - behavior had to be modified in order for breeding to continue, and we've been freaking out about it ever since.

So from there, you can pretty much branch out in any direction: love, lust, barter, even coercion and rape - the responses to this particular stressor were clearly numerous and varied - there wasn't just one respose, there was a whole range of responses, and I'd hazard to guess that the female orgasm fits in there somewhere - and bonding does have quite a lot to do with it - Apes are not typically monogamous.

Say whatever you want about Aquatic Ape theory, I thnk Morgan was on the right track about sex, and few other things.




(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/21/2006 9:03:58 AM   
subjected2006


Posts: 248
Joined: 1/20/2006
Status: offline 		When a woman orgasms her cervix(uterous attached) actually drops down..the reason is obviously to aid in the sperm getting to their goal.It just sucks that this means penis size doesnt matter so much in the breeding(evolutationary) proccess.Do we as women always manage to get the short end?(just kidding...)

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/21/2006 9:26:02 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		That's actually a strong argument AGAINST the theory that female orgasm aids in conception, because it takes longer for most female primates to reach orgasm than the entire sex act lasts.  They reach orgasm through masturbation or other kinds of non-procreative stimulation.  Again, bonobos are a good example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

Further, I believe that primates in general are capable of orgasm, female as well as male, and it clearly serves some evolutionary purpose - very few traits are entirely gratuitous, and these don't tend to be related to internal physiology or neurology.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Evolution Thoughts Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078