Are their people in society that are farther on the evolutionary scale than others.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Mechapixel, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    How quaint. Do you also hold to epicycles to explain the motion of the planets, and phlogiston to account for combustion? Prepare for a shock: the old Queen is dead.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Nyr Registered Senior Member

    - L.L. Cavalli-Sforza, Genetics, Evolution, and Man

    I can give more references if you like.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Obviously there are genetic traits that occur with various people from different parts of the world, they have however taken hundreds of generations to eventually accumilate. None of these traits however make them "superior", the only thing that does that is "Ego" and thats not based upon genetics or evolution.

    There might well be people with various mutations (Extra body parts etc), however it all still boils to "Survival of the fittest", if their unique traits are suppose to be an evolutionary branch, then sure enough their would be a greater number of occurances, which in turn would make their differences, normal and therefore observation of them as differences impossible.

    I'd suggest the most important thing to consider is that evolution isn't done in an instance, it takes multiple generations. Thats one of the reasons mice are used in 'labrat'ory experiments.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Salamander7 Registered Member

    Trying to claim that races don't exist is like trying to argue that 2 + 2 is 5. You can say it as many times as you like, but no one is going to believe what they know to be untrue, so why bother continuing to repeat it? The real question is not whether races exist, but when the issue of race is relevant. When it comes to civil rights, racial differences have no bearing, since all humans are equal with respect to how they should be treated by the government. On the other hand, a pharmacist will want to know the race of the patient who is receiving the prescription, since some kinds of drugs can have a different effect depending on race. When race is or is not relevant just depends on the context.
  8. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    I have only passing interest in the delusions of the majority. I shall continue to state what is relevant and true, and I do so here in a more precise manner. The concept of race is of no practical value. Many genetically determined characteristics cut completely across so called racial lines.
    Cite a single example of this wherein the different effect is wholly restricted to one race.

    I'm not indulging in a tree hugging, left wing liberal, politically correct agenda. I'm simply pooh poohing a distorted concept that owes more to the questionable soft sciences of sociology than to a hard science such as genetics.
  9. Cellar_Door Whose Worth's unknown Registered Senior Member

    For starters there's no such thing as 'more evolved'. Don't confuse the gradual process of Evolution with Natural Selection. Yes, some of us are better looking, fitter, faster and more intelligent than average. However, these more desirable traits can be due to a number of factors and are not necessarily passed on to our descendants.
  10. s6nculve Registered Member

    Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can culminate in the emergence of new species.

    New variation arises in two main ways: From mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination.

    The two major mechanisms that determine which variants will become more common or rare in a population are natural selection and genetic drift.

    The first question was are there "humans slightly more evolved than you and I?" No, but there are humans with "specific favorable genetic trait(s)."

    The second question was "If there are could their offspring retain those traits, eventhough their mother or father is not on the same evolutionary level as their partner is?" Natural selection and genetic drift might stop the genes from being passed on, but yes their offspring could retain those "specific favorable genetic trait(s)."

    I have a question. What would you consider a human who has been genetically engineered to have a set of specific favorable genetic traits (specifically to enhance his mind and body) through eugenics, gene doping, ect? What if he was superior to an athlete or Genius in a set of physical and mental tests? Would he be human? These physical tests might be the U.S. military Physical Fitness Tests, maybe the Army and Marine. The mental tests might be an extensive I.Q. test.
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2009
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    If he can potentially breed with other humans then he is a human.
  12. s6nculve Registered Member

    This much is true about us as humans. Humans are members of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae. Humans are a eukaryotic species. Each diploid cell has two sets of 23 chromosomes, each set received from one parent. There are 22 pairs of autosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. I don't think that breeding with other humans define us as humans. A lion can breed with a tiger but that does not mean the lion is a tiger or vice versa.
  13. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Breeding, as a species concept criterion, is typically taken further to mean that the resultant offspring can in turn produce viable offspring (i.e., that they are not sterile). Thus, horses and donkeys can interbreed, but since the offspring of these encounters (mules) are sterile, horses and donkeys are considered separate species. Ligers are similar to mules in that they are almost always sterile (although both ligers and mules have been observed to produce offspring on extremely rare occasion), thus lions and tigers are considered separate species.

    The interbreeding criterion is not quite as clear cut as it seems to be on the surface, as the above hints at. For example, many species of fruit fly are, genetically speaking, perfectly capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring, but their respective sex organs have evolved such that sex between species is physically impossible (breeding would only be possible through an artificial insemination procedure), leading to their classification as separate species. An even more uncertain consideration is whether certain groups of organisms tend to mate with each other. If two groups of organisms are capable of interbreeding but almost never do so even when clearly given the opportunity, they are typically classified as separate species.
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Which is what I implied, but failed to clearly state in my earlier post. Thank you for the clarification.
    I agree in toto with th rest of your post also.
  15. Slysoon Registered Senior Member

    Geographically separated peoples have evolved differently - both anatomically and intellectually - to help them better adapt to their unique environments. No group or individual can be said to be "more evolved" than another, because the phrase "more evolved" indicates there is a finish line humans are evolving to cross.
  16. Yosef Registered Senior Member


    I don't think some people are more evolved than others.

    <religious proselytising deleted>

    Mod note: This is a science forum. If you wish to substantiate your statement with some scientific rationales, then please feel free to do so. But if all you’ve got is pure religious rationalisations, then please express them in a more appropriate Sciforums section.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 26, 2009
  17. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    This rule breaks down completely in the captive breeding environment. An entire viable bloodline of cat-ocelot hybrids has been established, and ocelots aren't even the same genus as cats (Leopardus vs. Felis).

    Ditto for dogs/wolves (a single species) hybridized with coyotes. The many species of Amazon parrots have been hybridized extensively, and the same is true of the macaws, conures and cockatoos.
  18. s6nculve Registered Member


    I dont believe there is a "more evolved human" either, I believe there are organisms that are highly adapted thier specific environments. What I was getting at was; What defines us as humans? Through evolution or our own direct manipulation of our genes, when are we considered something else?
  19. nucleotideboy Registered Member

    Haven't read the rest of this thread yet bar the OP, so apologies if this is repetitious, or out of sequence with previous posts.

    The answer to the question in the OP is essentially a firm yes and no.

    I realise that seems like a fence-straddling position, but in fact it is accurate. There is no forward planning of the evolutionary "scale", no predefined biological destination. So from that point of view the evolutionary scale is only as long as it currently is, not what it might be in a few hundred millenia. In which case the answer is emphatically no, because such a concept doesn't really have any meaningful context.

    However! Evolution can only drive forward using the variation that is present in a population. Therefore, by definition, some pop. members will carry variations which, eventually, will be face selection pressures for evolution. So in that context, yes, some people are carrying variation that will eventually carry evolution along. But, and this is the key caveat, you cannot predict, realistically, what those variations are at the moment and also the impact of these variations probably isn't very great at the moment. In other words, they are just variation at the moment but you wouldn't look at them and think "oh look, the next stage in human evolution".

    So, the concept of "further down the evolutionary scale" is a concept that can only be applied with hindsight.
  20. prem Registered Senior Member

    evolved evolveder


    "evolution" needs consideration from the following aspects

    1) inheritable features for adaptation to an immediate enviornment
    2) inheritable features for adaptability to changes in environment
    3) inheritable features for creating making changes to the environment and living in it

    It is point 3 that characterizes the homo sapiens erectus.

    It is point 3 that introduces the concepts of "data", "information", "knowledge" and passing it on. Much of these concepts are "learnt" and may and may not also be considered having genetic component. Nevertheless "ability" to learn is very importnat in evolution. This is not so much the usefulness or otherwise of the "learning" to an immediate adaptation of the individual to an ecological niche or adaptability to changing environments but what it would confer on the progeny.

    Now this is touchy subject of "intelligence". This has been delegated to raising ire issues whether I am or my kind is stupid or stupider or not so stupid. The moot point is not the "I" and my times in controlled evolution rather it is the future and what can I pass on.

    There need not be debate on whether it is "genetic" or "learnt" in the most evolved species - rather it ought to be taking example of "imprinting" in migratory birds. This is not pure instinct nor is it pure learning. I would like to see more research on this as that could be key to more evolved us.
  21. prem Registered Senior Member

    evolved evolveder

    A few more thoughts on the subject.

    How is evolution related to Genetics?

    The phenotype (observed characteristics) has components

    1.genotype - the sum total of biologically inheritable differences
    3. inheritable differences x environment interactions

    The phenotype is a package deal singular phenomenon. Meaning every phenotype is unique. No phenotype can be manufactured to be exactly identical - you may come close but it is statistically impossible to have two living things to be exact. For practical and understanding purposes 95% probability level is considered good for biological studies for the time being. However with increasing biochemical, lab and molecular precision levels that biologists and genticists are working the probability level - the 95% level is not that good enough. This ought to be more like CAD CAM arenas and be reckoned in that scale. So 99.999 % level standards for research and application are the need and may not be too far away under controlled - created conditions. For example in a space station or on a "human" colonized space object.

    In such a condition what scope for "evolution" would there be? Adaptation - Adaptability and these two in created environments would be limited - and Evolution of use of data -information and knowledge for life parameters ( the gene X environment (Knowledge) component).

    Hence, evolution is very valid and less and more evolved is fact of life - It is evolution of the phenotype which includes evolution of the genotype - environment and genotype x environment interactions

    In human genetics a long time back Theodore Dobzhansky used the term "genetic load" implying the passing on of genes that have negative advantage because of technolgy advance. These under so called "normal environment" of primitive long ago. In evolved environments where diagnosis and correction is normal this poses no problem at all.

    I think this subject is fascinating and holistic because the real test of evolved evolveder is sustainability
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    You're misinterpreting that insidious 95% boundary. It's just for correction against type I error, at a rate of 1 in 20. You could as easily choose the FDR to correct against type I in all significant effects, or piss on Bonferroni altogether and use permuted significance thresholds for individual or multiple tests (which, in my experience, run higher than Bonf at large numbers of tests). You have to recall that Fisherian theory - on which adaptive evolution is at least partly based (I'm a partial Wrightian) - supposes the existence of large numbers of genes of small effect. Individual tests at relatively high stringency - even 99%, let alone 99.99% - are going to reject most of these effects anyway, negating the theory itself and forcing us into the alternative of oligogenic control.

    The solution, of course, is multiple confirmation - if you have the cash.

    So, 95%. Or: says who, anyway?
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2009
  23. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    I was moved to take a look at the wiki page about feline hybrids;
    interestingly, they mention lots of hybrids between feline species, but say specifically that
    Hybridisation does seem rife among the smaller cats, however. It seems that the cat genus has only recently diversified,
    so many of its species are close enough to hybridise. A fascinating conundrum.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2009

Share This Page