RE: Evolution Thoughts

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 - 4/22/2006 6:59:49 AM

Amaros

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

Traits originally selected for one purpose may serve another later on down the line - it's how "irruducable complexity" works - groups of originally disseperate organs may combine to serve new functions and presumably, this also works with neurological or psychological traits.

The most common theory for the male attraction to breasts for example, is that they resemble the buttocks of the presenting female - again, females have largely lost that particular behavioral trait, but males still respond to it.

On the other hand, I'm not aware of any studies on primate sexuality w/regard to the females orgasming - not doubting your word, I just don't have any information on the subject - I'm not sure you can simply substitute human experience.

It may also be possible that the female orgasm is related originally to childbirth and/or nursing - as weird as that may sound - two endomorphin releasing activities that are otherwise reported to be less than exhilirating.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 4/22/2006 7:02:08 AM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 61

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 7:30:36 AM

Amaros

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

I hold have said that it's one way irreducable complexity works, i.e., not all sighted organisms have both rods and cones in the eye - they probobly evolved seperately. Another is that genes sometimes randomly make extra copies of themselves, and these may later aquire new functions in combination with other genes.

Also, re: female orgasm, all fetus begin as female, and later differentiate into males or remain female - thus the ganglial traits that enable orgasm are probobly present to begin with, but mainly serve their apparently basic purpose in the male.

Thus, females may or may not utilize ths trait to increase fertility acording to individually inherited traits - it may not be universal, which is why the evidence on the subject is inconsistent.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 62

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 9:14:17 AM

Amaros

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

Upon further reflection, yet another possibility presents itself for ongoing selection of the female orgasm - pheremone studies indicate that reguar sex with a male, once a week except during menstruation, increases both fertility and counteracts osteoporosis - presumably, a highly orgasmic female would seek to engage in sexual activity more frequetly, and obtain these benefits, both increasing her fertilty and extending her childbearing/childrearing years, i.e., sexual selection.

Any or all of these things could be factors, even if the capacity for orgasm is itself should prove to be technically vestigial in females.

Breasts may play a similar role, if women possessing larger breasts recieve more attention from males, as they seem to.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 63

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 10:08:11 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

By the way, for a good example of the "byproduct" thesis I was talking about, you can read Elisabeth A. Lloyd, The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution (Cambridge, Mass., 2005). It's a very carefully argued book.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 64

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 12:20:31 PM

MistressDREAD

Posts: 2943
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

It's a very carefully argued book.

I find it amuzing the conversation of Men. As well
as the admitance of what They actually read to gain
information on things that are aloof to Them.
Especially those with big feet and noses. Im so very
tempted to spray paint grafitti of posies on that big grey
underside. Oh Jah let ME STOP cause I dont even
DARE write what just went thru My wonderfully evolved
mind............

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 65

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 12:48:57 PM

Rule

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
regular sex with a male ... increases both fertility and counteracts osteoporosis

Osteoporosis in women ususally becomes a factor only after fertility has ended with the onset of menopause. Women are already tremendously fertile, in natural conditions producing a child or multiple birth every three or four years provided they nurse the newborn for an extended period. Evolution has limited the childbearing period of women; it therefore certainly will not increase that period. No, it is simple: frequent sexual availability forces men to be providers and to bond for a prolonged time to a woman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Breasts may play a similar role, if women possessing larger breasts receive more attention from males, as they seem to.

They are a secondary sexual characteristic, just like beards are. It must be assumed, therefore, that the primary function of breasts is to identify a breasted woman as a mature and fertile female - unless she is in menopause and has a mustache.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 66

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 3:03:07 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Well, it's not as though women are born with an innate knowledge of the evolution of their breasts. The author of that book is female, after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressDREAD

I find it amuzing the conversation of Men. As well
as the admitance of what They actually read to gain
information on things that are aloof to Them.

(in reply to MistressDREAD)

Post #: 67

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 6:08:50 PM

Amaros

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Osteoporosis in women ususally becomes a factor only after fertility has ended with the onset of menopause. Women are already tremendously fertile, in natural conditions producing a child or multiple birth every three or four years provided they nurse the newborn for an extended period. Evolution has limited the childbearing period of women; it therefore certainly will not increase that period. No, it is simple: frequent sexual availability forces men to be providers and to bond for a prolonged time to a woman.

Better check your facts, I think you're wrong on that - bone loss begins to occur more quickly than new bone is deposited in both sexes at around age 30 - it accelerates in women after menopause, but male pheremones appear to slow down the loss, regulate periods, and lead to a milder menopause.

More fertile simply means it's easier to get pregnent - "women are already tremendously fertile" is a meaningless generalization - some are clearly more fertile than others or we wouldn't have fertility clinics, or for that matter, the vast array of fertility religions throughout history. Also, many women ontinue to raise children well after they've experinecd menopause - heard of Grandmothers?

A sexual selection advantage doesn't need to be dramatic, a couple more kids, or rather a couple more who live long enough to reproduce successfully themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
They are a secondary sexual characteristic, just like beards are. It must be assumed, therefore, that the primary function of breasts is to identify a breasted woman as a mature and fertile female - unless she is in menopause and has a mustache.

Maybe, but it's better not to assume anything - typically, paleolithic peoples have other, more scientific ways of determining when a girl is ready to become a woman - "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" is the old chestnut I believe, and nearly every culture I've ever studied has some sort of formalized ritual to mark this event, and many still do - menstruation is a very profound event among magical thinking cultures.

It's only in modern Western culture that one has to guess by how big the breasts are, and this is too recent to account for much.

In short, I think you'd have a hard time proving this as a robust selection stressor, although it might be involved - it seems a rather weak stressor to me - you'd have to argue a pretty substantial proportion of the population at a given point with no other way to tell - and that really doesn't explain how they got selected for to begin with to begin with, as all breasts probobly descend from a very few, possibly even only a single random mutation, the "mother of all boobies", as it were.

She must have been very popular.

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 68

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 11:06:15 PM

Rule

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Better check your facts, I think you're wrong on that

You think? You mean that you do not know? In that case the veracity of your statements is questionable, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Maybe, but it's better not to assume anything.

Ehm, "maybe" implies that you do not know. So I suspect that you are thinking again...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
menstruation is a very profound event among magical thinking cultures.

Quite! Instead of verifying optically whether they are dealing with a mature man or women, they are not looking for such very difficult to discern and always present optical secondary sexual characteristics like breasts or beards, but they sniff for the rarely present smell of menstrual blood.
You do it a lot, I suspect: practizing thinking. I verily admire the mighty effort you expend on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
It's only in modern Western culture that one has to guess by how big the breasts are, and this is too recent to account for much.

Quite. Especially during the winters, when the women are wearing trousers and one cannot look up their legs to see if they are bleeding. Say, that was a profoundly deep thought. You must be one of them genious thinkers, arn't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
In short, I think you'd have a hard time proving this as a robust selection stressor

I donnut quite understand what you mean; them is big, difficult words. But you must be right, as you are thinking again, even if it is only a short thought and you apparently do not know for certain, as you are thinking, not knowing that breasts will not be noticed or something. I will try to see a breast today and ifen I donnut, then everybody is a man.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 69

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 11:10:56 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Reminds me of that lovely quote by Beaumarchais: "Prouver que j'ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Better check your facts, I think you're wrong on that

You think? You mean that you do not know? In that case the veracity of your statements is questionable, isn't it?

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 70

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 11:16:43 PM

Rule

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

Si, je ne prouvera pas quelque chose.

Hey! Where has my vanilla ice cream gone?

< Message edited by Rule -- 4/22/2006 11:20:57 PM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 71

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/22/2006 11:26:48 PM

cuddleheart50

Posts: 9718
Joined: 2/20/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

never mind.

< Message edited by cuddleheart50 -- 4/22/2006 11:28:23 PM >

(in reply to ScooterTrash)

Post #: 72

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 6:22:25 AM

MizSuz

Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

"Survival of the fit enough to survive and procreate" would be closer to the truth. Darwin's own term was "natural selection," which biologists still favor and is, in its humble way, much more precise.

Natural selection is only one form of evolution and it supposes that nature or environmental factors are the reason for the evolutionary changes. Not all causes of evolution are natural selection. Often we effect our own evolutionary progression.

Example: Until 150 or so years ago many woman who didn't have hips wide enough to give birth died in child birth. Often or usually the child died, too. Since the advent of the cesarean section more children are being born (and surviving) to women with hips too narrow for childbirth. The consequence of this is that the genes that cause a woman's hips to be too narrow for child birth are making it back into the gene pool and we're having more and more women whose hips are too narrow for childbirth and need cesarean section (this discussion is not intended as a segue to the argument that cesarean section is used needlessly or carelessly in society). Natural selection would have weeded this segment of the population out had we not effected it with human intervention. There is also a school of thought that this intervention is allowing for the average size of the human head to increase (for similar reasons). Only time will tell how this effects the populace.

This is just one example but it certainly is food for thought. It often leaves me wondering how else are we effecting our evolution and will it end up being for our good or naught.

I don't think we are evolving along a preconceived linear line (divine or otherwise), but I think if you look back at any process the linear-ness of it will become apparent especially if you can see the intervening reasons for change. The "missing links" are merely places where we don't know how or why the process took another course or just died out.

I am neither a creationist, an evolutionist or one to adhere to the notion of intelligent design. I think we dont have all the facts so any of it is speculation and/ or faith. Our best bet is to watch and continue to try to understand without the need for proving or disproving any agenda. But it makes many people feel better to believe one thing or another and I'm all for people feeling better as long as they don't try to push a 'one true way' down my throat. In my opinion it's the people who always question who are most likely to produce answers and new ideas so I'd like to see the field remain open to all schools of thought.

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 73

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 9:01:00 AM

Amaros

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

[quote]ORIGINAL: Rule
You think? You mean that you do not know? In that case the veracity of your statements is questionable, isn't it?

Sure, why not, question away - that is the information provided about about Osteoporosis in pretty much every source I've checked - first onset around age 30.

So, since you insist - you're wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Ehm, "maybe" implies that you do not know. So I suspect that you are thinking again...

Absolutely - neither I nor anyone else currently alive actually witnessed any of this, and there are no records - that's why it's called 'prehistoric". One has to rely on the evidence, and the most plausible explanation for it. If I were a professional archeologist/anthropologist i probobly would refuse to speculate entirely - most don't.

Since I am speculating, and not pretending my guesses are established facts, or somehow self evidently correct, I see no reason not to admit as much, since those are the facts - it would be dishonest to do otherwise, and might lead others to waste time and energy questioning my veracity rather than considering the extant evidence for themselves or even trying to find out what that evidence might be, and applying it to the question.

Maybe you're right, I just don't happen to think so, and while I wouldn't rule it out as a possible factor, I'm reasonably certain that your hypothesis does not possess the exclusionary robustess you seem to think it does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Quite! Instead of verifying optically whether they are dealing with a mature man or women, they are not looking for such very difficult to discern and always present optical secondary sexual characteristics like breasts or beards, but they sniff for the rarely present smell of menstrual blood.
You do it a lot, I suspect: practizing thinking. I verily admire the mighty effort you expend on it.

I think you are applying your experience to neolithic culture - tribal organization tends to be clan based extended families, very close - are you telling me that even now, mothers are unaware of when their daughters first menstruation occurs? That in a group of Fifty to a Hundred people, living in intimate proximity for their entire lives, that every male is clueless to which women are available unless they have breasts?

Hell, some cultures still haven't even connected the dots between intercourse and pregnency, and again, it would be difficult to find a culture on the entire planet that doesn't have some sort of formal "coming of age" ceremony, once puberty has been reached. I'm sorry, it's just ludicrous that they would leave this to guesswork; mating is highly political in most cultures, and never left to chance - this isn't thousands of strangers walking around the city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
Quite. Especially during the winters, when the women are wearing trousers and one cannot look up their legs to see if they are bleeding. Say, that was a profoundly deep thought. You must be one of them genious thinkers, arn't you?

We're talking a course of posibly Seven Million Years here, human behaviors have their roots in hominid, and even protohominid adaptations - when exactly do you think pants were invented? Breasts themselves might not have even been around more than a milion years or so, maybe much less - hard to tell from a skull.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
I donnut quite understand what you mean; them is big, difficult words. But you must be right, as you are thinking again, even if it is only a short thought and you apparently do not know for certain, as you are thinking, not knowing that breasts will not be noticed or something. I will try to see a breast today and ifen I donnut, then everybody is a man.

Good luck to you then, if that's the only way you can tell - watch out for the fat guys. I typically have to see at their faces - maybe they should put a dab of mud on their foreheads or something.

< Message edited by Amaros -- 4/23/2006 9:55:19 AM >

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 74

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 9:33:25 AM

Amaros

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

You can't discuss evolution in any meaningful way and not understand selection stressors - it's quite simple in theory: there is a stress, and there is a response - if the stressor is strong eneough, life or death, selection is simple - those who formulate a successful response or posess a unique trait that allows them to overcome the stressor will survive and reproduce.

If the stressor is less powerful, then those with better resonses, or incremental adantages in morphological or psychological traits will generally have a marginal breeding adantage: a guy that can run a litle further or faster an put a little more meat on the table, feed three kids instead of two - a mother with more help from her mother can spend more time foraging, without negleting her childrens education or stimulation. A female with a little bit better eidetic or episodic memory can remember where healing herbs can be found, one with a little better lexical or syntatic memory can better comunicate this information to her own offspring, which will offer a marginal advantage in how many healthy children she can raise to procreative age, etc., etc.

The only "facts" here, are that women have breasts now, and have had them at least as far back as the earliest known artistic depictions of the female form - beyond that all you can do is guess, so you better have a systematic way of geussing that takes into account well established behavioral norms, and even then, don't get too attached to any one hypothesis.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 75

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 10:05:43 AM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Yes, exactly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MizSuz

Natural selection is only one form of evolution and it supposes that nature or environmental factors are the reason for the evolutionary changes. Not all causes of evolution are natural selection. Often we effect our own evolutionary progression.

(in reply to MizSuz)

Post #: 76

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 10:42:36 AM

Rule

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

I suddenly have got goldfishes swimming around in my eyes. Is that a myutatiun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Osteoporosis - first onset around age 30.

Indeed, but usually them osteopore bones do not break at age 30, but some years after onset of menopause, donnut they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
So, since you insist - you're wrong.

Never mind, I like to be wrong. It is so boring being right all the time.

*Sigh...*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
If I were a professional archeologist/anthropologist i probobly would refuse to speculate entirely - most don't.

That is so very smart! Them professional archeologists/anthropologists then most certainly are very genious thinkers, assuredly.

(Them goldfishes are bothering me again.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Since I am speculating, and not pretending my guesses are established facts, or somehow self evidently correct, I see no reason not to admit as much, since those are the facts - it would be dishonest to do otherwise, and might lead others to waste time and energy questioning my veracity rather than considering the extant evidence for themselves or even trying to find out what that evidence might be, and applying it to the question.

Quite. If I recall correctly, that postman in the television series Cheers verily once said something very similar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Maybe you're right, I just don't happen to think so, and while I wouldn't rule it out as a possible factor, I'm reasonably certain that your hypothesis does not possess the exclusionary robustess you seem to think it does.

Quite. It is all about busts, robust busts, also known as robust breasts, as postman Cliff Clavin Jr. would say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
when exactly do you think pants were invented?

Are you suggesting that I think? I most assuredly do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
Breasts themselves might not have even been around more than a milion years or so, maybe much less - hard to tell from a skull.

Indeed, that is because skulls often are hard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
watch out for the fat guys.

Thanks, I will, if only to avoid their mass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros
I typically have to see at their faces - maybe they should put a dab of mud on their foreheads or something.

So that is why they invented writing. Verily thanks! I always wondered about that.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 77

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 11:06:14 AM

Amaros

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

Alrighty then.

(in reply to Rule)

Post #: 78

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 7:54:03 PM

Amaros

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

Bones break when they are bent too far or are rushed by heavy objects - such as might happen when one alk on uneven ground a lot as opposed to say, driing a car or walking level surfaces. Anyway, the osteoporosis point concerned the role traditionally active of grandmothers in raising and helping o raise their grandchildren , as I think I've repeated about three times now - erhpas i worded something wrong backthere somewhere. Getting all testy here isn't going to help sell you argument that breasts are the only way men can identify a postpubescent female, and that'e th only reasonfor their existence - I bet everybody n here could tell a woman from a man, and even tell whether they're in their teens or older, just by looking at photos from the waist down with better than 90% accuracy.

In spite of the conventional wisdom concerning onset of menses, the optimal window or first intercourse for women is between 18 and 21 - onset of menses is usually around twelve or thirteen, and a girl may have breasts for five years or more before she is at her biologial prime for sex. Early intercourse is linked to a number of health risks, inluding increased risk of cervical cancer.

A couple of interesting links, breast to waist ratio predicts fertility in one study, while in another, increased parental attention, particularly from fathers, delays the onset of puberty in females.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3682657.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/464637.stm

The question is whether she is more fertile becase of the male attention caused by the breasts, or whether she has the breasts because she's more fertile - maybe a little bit of both, have to see the details of how the study was designed.

I was looking for research on hip to waist ration, which other studies indicate as a fertility predictor - back in the day, I believe Raquel Welch epitomized the ideal female proportions - 36-26-36 - nowadays the popular preference seems to have swung to narrower hips and bigger breasts - the Playboy ideal - but I'll take those birthin' hips any day.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 79

RE: Evolution Thoughts - 4/23/2006 8:10:33 PM

darq

Posts: 443
Joined: 4/21/2006
From: under a rock
Status: offline

Actually Playboy (the company) wants women with natural ... Not always bigger ... Breasts. The idea is that men are now attracted to a more natural female form as opposed to a plastic one. So that whole big boobies = yum thing, doesn't work.

(in reply to Amaros)

Post #: 80

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

0.094