Early Humans Domesticated Themselves, New Genetic Evidence Suggests (sciencemag.org) 133
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Magazine: A new study -- citing genetic evidence from a disorder that in some ways mirrors elements of domestication -- suggests modern humans domesticated themselves after they split from their extinct relatives, Neanderthals and Denisovans, approximately 600,000 years ago. Domestication encompasses a whole suite of genetic changes that arise as a species is bred to be friendlier and less aggressive. In dogs and domesticated foxes, for example, many changes are physical: smaller teeth and skulls, floppy ears, and shorter, curlier tails. Those physical changes have all been linked to the fact that domesticated animals have fewer of a certain type of stem cell, called neural crest stem cells.
Giuseppe Testa, a molecular biologist at University of Milan in Italy, and colleagues knew that one gene, BAZ1B, plays an important role in orchestrating the movements of neural crest cells. Most people have two copies of this gene. Curiously, one copy of BAZ1B, along with a handful of others, is missing in people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, a disorder linked to cognitive impairments, smaller skulls, elfinlike facial features, and extreme friendliness. To learn whether BAZ1B plays a role in those facial features, Testa and colleagues cultured 11 neural crest stem cell lines: four from people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, three from people with a different but related disorder in which they have duplicates instead of deletions of the disorder's key genes, and four from people without either disorder. Next, they used a variety of techniques to tweak BAZ1B's activity up or down in each of the stem cell lines. That tweaking, they learned, affected hundreds of other genes known to be involved in facial and cranial development. Overall, they found that a tamped-down BAZ1B gene led to the distinct facial features of people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, establishing the gene as an important driver of facial appearance. "When the researchers looked at those hundreds of BAZ1B-sensitive genes in modern humans, two Neanderthals, and one Denisovan, they found that in the modern humans, those genes had accumulated loads of regulatory mutations of their own," the report says. "This suggests natural selection was shaping them. And because many of these same genes have also been under selection in other domesticated animals, modern humans, too, underwent a recent process of domestication."
The findings have been reported in the journal Science Advances.
Giuseppe Testa, a molecular biologist at University of Milan in Italy, and colleagues knew that one gene, BAZ1B, plays an important role in orchestrating the movements of neural crest cells. Most people have two copies of this gene. Curiously, one copy of BAZ1B, along with a handful of others, is missing in people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, a disorder linked to cognitive impairments, smaller skulls, elfinlike facial features, and extreme friendliness. To learn whether BAZ1B plays a role in those facial features, Testa and colleagues cultured 11 neural crest stem cell lines: four from people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, three from people with a different but related disorder in which they have duplicates instead of deletions of the disorder's key genes, and four from people without either disorder. Next, they used a variety of techniques to tweak BAZ1B's activity up or down in each of the stem cell lines. That tweaking, they learned, affected hundreds of other genes known to be involved in facial and cranial development. Overall, they found that a tamped-down BAZ1B gene led to the distinct facial features of people with Williams-Beuren syndrome, establishing the gene as an important driver of facial appearance. "When the researchers looked at those hundreds of BAZ1B-sensitive genes in modern humans, two Neanderthals, and one Denisovan, they found that in the modern humans, those genes had accumulated loads of regulatory mutations of their own," the report says. "This suggests natural selection was shaping them. And because many of these same genes have also been under selection in other domesticated animals, modern humans, too, underwent a recent process of domestication."
The findings have been reported in the journal Science Advances.
Well that's lame (Score:1)
At least dogs were forced into becoming wussified. But this is like self oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
"At least dogs were forced into becoming wussified." I see, so you would rate "wussification" lower than living longer and not dying sooner due to aggression from other males. By all reports, females prefer sensitive men who aren't beating their chests and opining on their size of their dicks. However, if the latter works for you, get out there and start bleating, there isn't enough humor in the world.
In the friend zone (Score:2)
> By all reports, females prefer sensitive men who aren't beating their chests
In the friend zone, yes. They prefer soft, sensitive men to go shopping with.
Unfortunately, possibly due instincts encoded in ancient genes, they are turned on by Mark Wahlberg, not Todd Chrisley. Marlon Brando was a sex symbol, not Richard Simmons. No woman ever fantasized about Bob Saget taking her from behind.
That's too bad for me, because I have more in common with Todd Chrisley than I do with Dwayne Johnson.
Fortunately, I
Btw this was tested and confirmed, not just theory (Score:2)
But the way, I'm not just theorizing. I went through a phase of trying to find my one-in-a-million by going on dates with about a hundred different ladies.
I was able to confirm that the following impressed ladies:
Being greeted by many people (social standing)
Being thanked "thanks for helping me out last week" (shows some sort of power - to help other people or choose not to)
Driving three different vehicles to the first three dates.
Mentioning that I prefer to pay cash for vehicles instead of getting loans.
Re: (Score:2)
But the way, I'm not just theorizing. I went through a phase of trying to find my one-in-a-million by going on dates with about a hundred different ladies.
Guy dates one hundred ladies he picks up in bars, and reports all women are like the women he picks up in bars. Because sample size of 100!
Re: (Score:2)
Also: He tells women that a relationship with him is a purely economic proposition, and women treat a relationship with him as a purely economic proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for conveying the results of your sociological research to us. You should publish. But you will have about a hundred co-authors. Do you remember any of their names? Their real ones, that is.
Can't call this "humble bragging" since there is no fake humility here. I guess this is a case of "pity bragging" where the braggart boasts of dating lots of strangers, tries to impress them by pretending to own a fleet of cars, but complains that none of them cared about "the real me".
Only on Slashdot (Score:2)
Only on a site as nerdy as Slashdot could talking about going to lunch with more than one woman, rather than settling for the one and only woman who ever indicated interest, be considered bragging.
Going to lunch actually isn't any more difficult than setting up a Raspberry Pi, so if you're the type who can learn how to network a cluster of Pis, you can also learn how to network with humans - even female humans. It's not that hard. It's not a skill worth bragging about, its a skill most anyone on Slashdot
Re: (Score:2)
> By all reports, females prefer sensitive men who aren't beating their chests
In the friend zone, yes. They prefer soft, sensitive men to go shopping with.
Bingo. I tried the sensitive guy approach once, years ago, and got friendzoned instantly.
heh My better half has some gay friends who are sensitive. I'm not certain you would call that friend zoned, but yeah, sensitivity isn't a turn on.
I think it is a mutant adaptation of the "If only you were more like me" argument. The idea that if males were only like females, all would be good. But as much as a male being happy to cry about many things doesn't create a desire in her to mate. Maybe commiserate, but
Re: (Score:2)
Like the lady in this picture:
https://ifunny.co/picture/get-... [ifunny.co]
Re: (Score:2)
Like the lady in this picture:
https://ifunny.co/picture/get-... [ifunny.co]
Exactly. That guy's gonna get laid tonight.
Every group, be it liberal or conservative, has some ideas that just don't work. Like demanding weak males while falling for the aggressive ones by the feminist left.
Here's another one along those lines. I'm not posting this for political reasons, but to show how attraction to an alpha works at times. https://www.theweek.in/content... [theweek.in]
Re: (Score:2)
Every group, be it liberal or conservative, has some ideas that just don't work. Like demanding weak males while falling for the aggressive ones by the feminist left.
This is a misogynistic fantasy, propped up by popular culture's tendency to highlight what are in fact anomalous socio-culture events rather than common ones."Women forming long-term relationship with man who is a close friend" and "women in long-term relationship bearing partner's children" do not make news stories.
Well if you ever get tired of being a sub (Score:2)
Well, Carey, if you ever get tired of being a sub, we've explained it to you. What you do in your life is your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry recirculating boasts you trade with people trade on incel sites makes you look like a very small guy (can't say "man").
English? (Score:2)
Want to try that again in English?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry recirculating boasts you trade with people trade on incel sites makes you look like a very small guy (can't say "man").
Ah - triggered and calling people tired old pejoratives that don't mean anything any more. And apparently much anger calling hims a "very small guy"
Triggered tantrums are impressive, and more childish than anything raymorris and I were discussing.
HOw come ya'll preachers of inclusivity love to label everything. A label for everyone is the opposite of inclusivity. Sorry not sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Every group, be it liberal or conservative, has some ideas that just don't work. Like demanding weak males while falling for the aggressive ones by the feminist left.
This is a misogynistic fantasy,
There ya go. My, we simply love to lebel and castigate. And yet.......
https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] But wait - there's more! https://www.livescience.com/20... [livescience.com]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] I'm just getting started
https://www.lifeadvancer.com/w... [lifeadvancer.com]
Aww shucks....
Now written by a women you'll hurry to blast as a misogynist. https://www.bustle.com/p/why-a... [bustle.com]
I could go on, but I'm getting bored.
Even without a woman having a conscious or unconscious attraction to men that are not good for th
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty good point that you're making about stuff like that college zero-tolerance stuff. The problem is that there are a small number of *serial abusers*, and they are usually sociopaths and/or psychopaths. This subset are responsible for the vast majority of abuse women suffer. Someone who abuses doesn't just abuse once, they tend to have a pattern of abuse with multiple victims. I think some stat was that the average rapist had raped 6 women. So divide the number of victims by about 6 and that's th
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pretty good point that you're making about stuff like that college zero-tolerance stuff. The problem is that there are a small number of *serial abusers*, and they are usually sociopaths and/or psychopaths. This subset are responsible for the vast majority of abuse women suffer.
Exactly. Yet in my workplace, rather than address the people who were the problem, they broad brushed the entire male portion of the workforce - and by that act, also broadbrushed the entire female portion. Rapists and victims.
And over time, it became more onerous, making normal interactions between men and women very difficult. Men became bigger and bigger monsters by definition, and women became by definition so weak that simple non-sexual touch became sexual assault of such severity that she was consid
Re: (Score:2)
Every group, be it liberal or conservative, has some ideas that just don't work. Like demanding weak males while falling for the aggressive ones by the feminist left.
The feminist left mostly doesn't have sex with men anyway. Regular women outside the academic hothouse are the ones who choose actual mates.
Re: (Score:2)
Every group, be it liberal or conservative, has some ideas that just don't work. Like demanding weak males while falling for the aggressive ones by the feminist left.
The feminist left mostly doesn't have sex with men anyway. Regular women outside the academic hothouse are the ones who choose actual mates.
A fair number of them are sapphic. But you'll see a lot of women at the clubs, and a surprising number are married, and not there with their husbands. They aren't academics.
Re: (Score:2)
You tried to be nice to a woman one time, and she didn't have sex with you. That isn't a very strong argument for whether women as a whole like sensitive men.
But anyway, you're way outside the point. The subject isn't whether the nicest modern human wins. It's whether the average modern human's behaviour is more attractive than that of a *chimpanzee*. I guarantee you that even you are the "sensitive guy" compared to a chimpanzee.
The actual counter to the above is that chimpanzee ladies might prefer chim
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is a mutant adaptation of the "If only you were more like me" argument. The idea that if males were only like females, all would be good.
Well that's pretty true. Part of the problem is that it's part of the social game to *say* certain things, but they're not actually really true or that desired. I think this can also lead to the "I do everything she wants but she still isn't happy" kind of syndrome. Do stuff for her that she doesn't want, be surprising, it'll work better than ticking off a checklist of "things she says she wants".
If women really wanted men who were more like women they'd be dating each other, but they're not. Being "like" a
Re: (Score:2)
I should note that by "If women really wanted men who were more like women they'd be dating each other, but they're not". I only mean straight women who actually say stuff like this, not all women.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's pretty true. Part of the problem is that it's part of the social game to *say* certain things, but they're not actually really true or that desired. I think this can also lead to the "I do everything she wants but she still isn't happy" kind of syndrome. Do stuff for her that she doesn't want, be surprising, it'll work better than ticking off a checklist of "things she says she wants".
If women really wanted men who were more like women they'd be dating each other, but they're not. Being "like" a woman is literally being like her friends, not a potential partner. Should anyone be surprised that you get put in the "friend" category then? Find out what she actually does with her friends, and find basically anything that's not on that list, then do that.
I think what happens is a guy might be interested in a woman, and falls into the trap that women supposedly like sensitive guys. So he tries that approach, then gets friend zoned. She likes the guy, and while she might reward the behavior, she does not see him in a romantic manner. Some people call that losing respect for him as a man, but I dunno. Might just be that she crosses him off the list of romantic partners. But he's still interested, and stuck in the trap until he gives up Pretty horrible when th
Re: (Score:2)
"At least dogs were forced into becoming wussified." I see, so you would rate "wussification" lower than living longer and not dying sooner due to aggression from other males. By all reports, females prefer sensitive men who aren't beating their chests and opining on their size of their dicks. However, if the latter works for you, get out there and start bleating, there isn't enough humor in the world.
"At least dogs were forced into becoming wussified." I see, so you would rate "wussification" lower than living longer and not dying sooner due to aggression from other males. By all reports, females prefer sensitive men who aren't beating their chests and opining on their size of their dicks. However, if the latter works for you, get out there and start bleating, there isn't enough humor in the world.
"Reports", amirite? Yet there is plenty of proof that those bad boy males manage to get more than their share of sex, and often manage to become parents without the responsibility of raising the kids. Go to a "singles" bar. Plenty of married women there. It's kind of a bad solution to the awkward situation that women find themselves in that that sensitive guy she married simply doesn't attract her sexually, while the bad boy does turn her on.
At his point in history, male/female relationships are in a ve
Well aren't you a neanderthal... (Score:2)
Getting all hung up on and confused with a simple etymological fallacy despite obvious advantages of the evolutionary traits you just shat your pants over.
Domestication is another way of saying rational and team-oriented.
It's how we made those better clubs, invented agriculture, cities, everything else... and how we extincted both your asses.
Say hello to Denisovans when you see them. IN HELL!!!
Re: (Score:2)
domesticate
n verb
1 tame (an animal) and keep it as a pet or for farm produce. Øhumorous accustom (someone) to home life and domestic tasks.
2 cultivate (a plant) for food.
DERIVATIVES
domesticable adjective
domestication noun
As Yuval Noah Harari points out in "Sapiens",
“We did not domesticate wheat. It domesticated us. The word ‘domesticate’ comes from the Latin domus, which means ‘house’. Who’s the one l
Re: (Score:2)
Every good harvest tempted people to have more children, ...
Sorry to break your illusions.
Kids don't come from rich harvests.
They come from having sex. I guess you are old enough to ... hm ... have guessed that on your own meanwhile.
Eating grains weakened their immune systems ... On what science would such a claim be based?
A contradiction of terms (Score:2)
I don't know if their conclusion holds. It's plausible that natural selection gave rise to certain traits in humans without any
Re: (Score:2)
You're using a different definiton than they are. By your definition it can't happen, but by theirs it can...and does. Think of it as the preliminary step towards the evolution of eusocial behavior. And consider it as descriptive rather than admonitory.
Re: (Score:2)
What they mean is that the same mutations / selections occurred in humans that occurred in other animals that we domesticated.
Also, there isn't the strict line between "selective breeding" and "natural selection" that you suggest. A female peacock makes some sort of decision about which male peacock she will mate with.
Humans decide which humans other humans should mate with (encourage, force, discourage, or ban pairings), and have for thousands of years. That's selective breeding right there. We do it to ea
Re: (Score:2)
Humans decide which humans other humans should mate with (encourage, force, discourage, or ban pairings), and have for thousands of years.
And it's called "sexual selection" and is a basic aspect of all animal reproduction.
Domesticated? (Score:4, Funny)
My wife says the jury is still out on that.
Re:Domesticated? (Score:4, Funny)
All I can say is - my tail is neither short nor curly.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife says the jury is still out on that.
Try using the litter box instead of the floor, you animal.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't mean the same thing. Civilized means adapted to living in cities. Domesticated *should* mean house-broken, but seems to actually mean "capable of living around people without attacking them", or some such. But they provide their own definition which is largely compatible with that, but much more specific.
Domesticated themselves? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got a weird idea of life before tools were common. I doubt that rape was ever the dominant form of reproduction. I'm not denying that it happened, even ducks rape, just that it was very common...or a particularly successful strategy. Looking at bonobo and chimpanzee societies and extrapolating, I would guess that it was quite uncommon among our common ancestors. Among baboons it's been known to get even a dominant male killed.
Among humans living in small primitive groups, being that kind of a nui
Re: (Score:2)
Among humans living in small primitive groups, being that kind of a nuisance is a good way to get exiled, or killed if you don't leave quickly enough.
Ironically, the GP's view that history is one long history of women being raped is actually *really, really racist*, it's like the "enlightened white man" belief about all those nasty savages. yet the Grandparent poster probably believes it for "PC" reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't more cooperative and friendly females be easier to mate with in a world where most mating was involuntary (rapey)?
Why would you believe this was the case? We don't see this in any primitive societies. Even in the most regressive patriarchal societies (which all arose due to agriculture, since food surpluses and land ownership allow heirarchies to form) it's not the cases that "most" mating is rape.
Primitive societies don't have labor surpluses so they work on a cooperative basis. you can't afford to mistreat anyone that much, because the group requires their labor and there is no excess labor to "police" them.
Neoteny (Score:2)
One feature that humans have is neoteny [wikipedia.org], which is the retention of juvenile features into adulthood.
Look at the face of a puppy, baby baboon or baby gorilla, compared to an adult: they develop a large muzzle, and muscles that go with it, for the jaws, that attach to the sides and often the ridge crest of the skull. In humans, we lack these massive jaws, and associated muscles, and no muzzle. One theory is that allows the skull cavity to be larger for the brain and not constrained by the central ridge that h
Re: (Score:1)
Very hard, I am resisting mention of you-know-who.
Re: (Score:2)
He-who-must-not-be-named has the biggest juvenile features in the history of the world. And he's a stable genius. Even the NATO leaders acknowledged as such doing their hot-mic interlude. In fact, he's so stable that he decided to declare Peace with Honor (via his hero Nixon) and leave early so they could discuss his greatness in his absence. They were much appreciative of his first gesture towards the unity of NATO. Trudeau was so impressed that he used both faces to express his appreciation that he-who-mu
That's not domestication (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both species were domesticated and socialized.
Re: (Score:1)
Until emacs versus vi is brought up...
So basically... (Score:2)
The roots of Idiocracy run derp (Score:2)
slavery was common back then (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery was not common back then: it only became common after agriculture was developed. If you're a hunter-gatherer then keeping slaves is a nuisance. (1) What sort of labor could you possibly extract from them? (2) you have to feed them (3) you have to expend effort watching them (4) you don't have houses or fences to keep them in.
Some things never change (Score:3)
In the late paleolithic era, last known group of neanderthals was seen huddled around a campfire, bitterly complaining about all the SJWs taking over the adjacent valleys.
Re: (Score:2)
I read some articles about bone analysis of neanderthals, and they were mostly carnivorous. https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com] I think this is what did them in. A pure carnivore will have a population that is cyclic depending on prey availability, as prey dies, the carnivores reduce in number, the prey then recovers, and so on. But our ancestors were omnivores, though we did prefer meat. So, cro-magnons come into an area, they deplete the large mammals (there were mass extinctions whenever we arrived) but in
Self-Domesticating? (Score:1)
Is that like a motorcycle bar accident?
Domesticated? (Score:2)
And here I thought only marriage domesticated people.
--
Insane means fewer cameras! - Ally Carter
Gracilization suggests the same thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Gracilization is the process where a species loses some of its bone density (robustness) over the ages because it no longer needs it. Our domesticated animals are more gracile than their wild counterparts, perhaps because they live safer, more tranquil lives, being cared for and looked after by humans.
The human skeleton too is more gracile than that of the Neanderthals, and it appears the Neanderthals needed that robustness. Their skeletal remains suggest that they were frequently involved in violent activi
Hoomanz were domesticated by cats (Score:3)
Millions of years ago, cats decided primates might be useful someday if we were properly domesticated . They were right. Even gorillas love kitties (google: koko and all-ball).
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of years ago, cats decided primates might be useful someday if we were properly domesticated . They were right. Even gorillas love kitties (google: koko and all-ball).
So cats decided to domesticate dogs who domesticated humans.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the cats got us first, using cuteness to trick us, but after that they realized the humans might expect the cats to do something in return, so they manipulated us to domestic dogs. The dogs thus provide the gruntwork that cats refuse to do.
Denisovians (Score:1)
The Denisovans or Denisova hominins are an extinct species or subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo without an agreed taxonomic name. Pending consensus on its taxonomic status, it has been referred to as Homo denisova, Homo altaiensis, or Homo sapiens denisova.
Is it unclear to anyone from this that there are no objective genetic distinctions here, and they are simply made up genetic delineations with a made up name to apply it what is made up? [wikipedia.org]
Now people will assert this is attacking "evolution". They can't make the mildest distinctions between arbitrariness and objectivity in that domain. I'm not arguing with facts, I'm arguing with academic hypnosis.
"species or subspecies of archaic humans in the genus Homo without an agreed taxonomic name"
A species.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh....try the little yellow pills next time and at least attempt to make a coherent point.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes no sense. We don't have any agreed taxonomic name about Denisovans because they were only discovered in 2010. It'll take decades for the scientific community to work out exactly how they fit into everything.
We do have DNA however, and we have enough to know that they are *NOT* humans, but they are related to humans. This is not made up evidence. It's clearly not human DNA, but it's similar.
You stupid? (Score:1)
It doesn't seem particularly difficult to name some arbitrary social characteristic like "domesticated", -correlated- not -caused- by genetic changes, and then say whatever humans did, by reproduction, -not- by decision, "did" something.
You don't think people decide who they reproduce with?
Re:You stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't think people decide who they reproduce with?
In most places, for most of history, no, people didn't make that decision themselves. Their parents made it for them.
Even today, more than half of marriages worldwide are arranged. In countries with both arranged and self-selected marriages, arranged marriages tend to be more stable and less likely to end in divorce.
Arranged marriage [wikipedia.org]
Reproduction != raising (Score:2)
As for arranged marriages being more stable: those societies also flat out do not allow divorces or place a strong taboo on it.
Re:Reproduction != raising (Score:4, Informative)
There are actual studies of studies of non-pair paternity rates around the world - which using modern genetics is easy to do these days.
Ethnobiologist Marlene Zuk surveyed the literature [latimes.com] and found reported rates of 1 to 3.7% on the high end (there are some extreme outliers - the Yanomamo have a rate of 9.1%). This means that 96-99% of all babies are fathered by the male parent of record, and low end estimates seem more prevalent (so 99% is more likely to be correct over hsitory than 96%).
So despite common assumptions of lots of affairs being really, really common everywhere, all the time - the actual effect on producing children is tiny. Marriages overwhelming decide actual parentage. One reason that people have a really high over estimate are estimates of cheating that are really estimates of lifetime rates of it occurring even once, which has no relation to the likelihood of resulting pregnancies.
still people deciding (Score:1)
Re:You stupid? (Score:4, Informative)
The man who constantly complains about progressives, single mothers, and unruly youth suddenly confuses reproduction with marriage.
He wasn't talking about marriage.
Re: (Score:2)
In most places, for most of history, no, people didn't make that decision themselves.
For most of history? Maybe. I'm curious though if that holds in prehistory, or if nomadic bands of hunter-gatherers were less formal about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
stick clear of evolution discussions because you are way out of your depth
Maybe I should. Just wait, let evolution eliminate you, automatically win.
Would be a time saver. And yes, your other obvious lies are obvious.
Re: (Score:1)
"WaySmarterThanYou"... obviously the same trolling lying pointless idiot.
Don't you have getting back to being ash to get to? Not that it matters, evolution has no other end for you.
At least in your fool's notion of it.
Re:Genetic telekinesis powers on display (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer was just a bit further down in the article, Empiric:
This is NOT hard to understand, and it is nothing like "genetic telekinesis" or whatever absurdity you are trying to make it out to be. The suggestion here is that the social pressures that arise in cooperative societies impacted breeding patterns, hence acting as selective pressure.
You are just grasping at ways of misrepresenting the claims to make them seem absurd, when they are not, no doubt because the evolution model conflicts with your religious ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
The answer was just a bit further down in the article, Empiric:
This is NOT hard to understand, and it is nothing like "genetic telekinesis" or whatever absurdity you are trying to make it out to be. The suggestion here is that the social pressures that arise in cooperative societies impacted breeding patterns, hence acting as selective pressure.
You are just grasping at ways of misrepresenting the claims to make them seem absurd, when they are not, no doubt because the evolution model conflicts with your religious ideas.
It seems that aggression and alpha dominant groups did influence our evolution greatly before cooperative agriculture began to centralize populations. Whereas populations that remained aggressive and nomadic tended to remain greatly influenced by alpha situations. Extreme alpha situations are best characterized by Mongolia of today [discovermagazine.com] and how society there even today is greatly influenced genetically by one human.
I feel that the ascertains made in the article quoted in the post need to be put into perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Humans are no different, if times are tough the dominant male will tend to be the one that passes on the most genetic material.
Social groups that split off in a follow the leader to the promised land quest also tend to revert to dominance characterized by polygamy as witnessed today in the Western US and Canada. We are not that far off from social anarchy and historically when we do have a difficult time we inevitably regress in evolution to alpha societal status.
What is interesting to me is the preference of so many human females to mate temporarily with alphas even though the main of society would select for beta males. In Western society, females overwhelmingly control reproduction, so perhaps the desire for stability with a beta is temporarily overwhelmed by the fact that she is obviously sexually stimulated by the "bad boy". A surprising number of men are raising other men's children conceived during their marriage, and some countries tacitly acknowledge this b
Re: (Score:2)
I would surmise that the female of the species is still dealing with some ancient advantages in mating with alpha males
The advantage still exists, because dating an alpha male gets you more alpha sons, and those will be considered attractive by the next generation of women.
Re: (Score:2)
I would surmise that the female of the species is still dealing with some ancient advantages in mating with alpha males
The advantage still exists, because dating an alpha male gets you more alpha sons, and those will be considered attractive by the next generation of women.
In the long run, it is quite counterproductive. That alpha male's offspring is increasingly likely to be raised in a mother-only household. Males opting out of entanglements is increasingly popular. So after her bad boy impregnates her, she's either going to have to have her beta male raise the child, or the government act as the father and pay her to raise the child.
Here are some statistics that show how the social trend of considering males as superflous and unnecessary to raising familes are: https:/ [fixfamilycourts.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That alpha male's offspring is increasingly likely to be raised in a mother-only household.
As long as it doesn't negatively affect the amount of children they can father in their turn, that doesn't matter much.
Re: (Score:2)
That alpha male's offspring is increasingly likely to be raised in a mother-only household.
As long as it doesn't negatively affect the amount of children they can father in their turn, that doesn't matter much.
Well - I live in an area with a goodly number of single moms, and their sons aren't thought of as alpha males. They are also often Ritalinized to keep them manageable. So many of these young males are the ones that people complain about because they'd rather just play video games then go out and find a nice girl and settle down. My guess is the drugs messed up their development.
Re: (Score:2)
because dating an alpha male gets you more alpha sons ...
Unlikely. Being alpha is a social status, not a genetic trait.
With kids being raised by a "beta" the kids most likely will be "beta", too
Re: (Score:2)
Being alpha is a social status, not a genetic trait.
A social status you get partially from genetic traits. For instance, being handsome and tall helps a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
What is handsome, is culture. Not really genetics. Obviously being tall is partly genetics, or having a face of a certain type. But if you consider a certain type 'handsome' is culture. My wive does not like her nose, wants me to pay for an operation, but I consider it one of the most interesting parts of her face. An asian nose, but she wants a european one ...
Of course I don't know a culture where being tall is a disadvantage :D
But in Asia e.g. it is considered "handsome" if one has a belly ... in Europe
Re: (Score:2)
What is handsome, is culture. Not really genetics. Obviously being tall is partly genetics, or having a face of a certain type. But if you consider a certain type 'handsome' is culture. My wive does not like her nose, wants me to pay for an operation, but I consider it one of the most interesting parts of her face.
Most women are inherently beautiful. And I wish they wouldn't mess with their characteristics unless there's a really good reason. Tell her to knock it off! Well not knock her nose off, but leave it alone...
In American culture, too many women seem to believe that men like breasts that look like they are lactating. And of all the men I know, I know of one that considers huge breasts to be important. And the fake ones women get have a tendency too look like bolted on halves of a cantaloupe. Ugh. Apparently b
Re: (Score:2)
What is interesting to me is the preference of so many human females to mate temporarily with alphas even though the main of society would select for beta males. In Western society, females overwhelmingly control reproduction, so perhaps the desire for stability with a beta is temporarily overwhelmed by the fact that she is obviously sexually stimulated by the "bad boy". A surprising number of men are raising other men's children conceived during their marriage.
What would that surprising number be? As I post above, actual research finds a common rate of about 1%. So, did you mean surprisingly low?
I might agree that "in Western society, females overwhelmingly control reproduction" but they do it by agreeing to form a stable pair-bond with their father of their children, whether it is in marriage or not.
Re: (Score:2)
b
What would that surprising number be? As I post above, actual research finds a common rate of about 1%. So, did you mean surprisingly low?
Looking at the research, it reads like the gender is a social construct crowd did it. Soi anyhow, Are you denying that women have affairs? The number tht get knocked up isn't the real point - it's that they do. Now, if it is actually a number that is so low as to be in the noise, it is really odd that a husband isn't allowed to do a DNA test withoug being sent to prison in France. It would seem that in over 99 percent of the tests, his wife would be shown as the incredibly loyal and faithful pair bonded ma
Re: (Score:2)
The self-domestication hypothesis has been around for a while and it is nice to see more evidence of it.
It's not so strange really. As humans became more groupish (developed shared intent, communication skills etc), it became more important to detect liars, freeloaders and bullies (like alpha-males) which try to abuse the group dynamics for their own benefit. It is called "self-domestication" since it is the group that self-selects the people who play well with the group. It is just like how we select the h
Re: (Score:3)
As humans became more groupish (developed shared intent, communication skills etc), it became more important to detect liars, freeloaders and bullies (like alpha-males) which try to abuse the group dynamics for their own benefit.
Sadly this process has gone into reverse since humans began living in huge communities of 100,000 and more - nowadays with nations reaching a billion or more.
Liars, freeloaders and bullies cannot hide in a small community of up to maybe 1,000 or so - which is how humans have lived for 99% of their existence, and what they evolved to cope with.
In the modern world, liars, freeloaders and bullies become CEOs, politicians and generals - and do very well.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that easy to hide and still spread your genes. You still need friends to find a mate. Even if we live in large societies we tend to form small social sub groups. Immoral behaviour like lying, cheating etc is only bad if it affects the sub-group since it is your sub-group status that determines your chance of mating. So, lying, freeloading and bullying is relative. You don't do it in-group but it may not be immoral if it is out-group. I don't think there are necessarily more cheaters today than 100
Re: (Score:3)
Immoral behaviour like lying and cheating is no problem for finding a mate. In fact, when it leads to success, (confidence, money, power) it is highly desirable.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter there's data that supports dogs domesticating themselves initially. E.g. the increasing ability to digest complex carbohydrates compared to wolves. So the theory goes that it was profitable to scavenge around human garbage dumps, and the ones that were more aggressive were more likely to get killed off. (There's more to it, but that's where it starts.) And a lot of what was in the human garbage dumps was complex carbohydrates, so they evolved to become better at digesting them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's always been about life and death as well as about mating preferences, at least since the split away from the sponges. So corals evolved to all release their sperm at the same time on the same day (within a small region). That was mating preferences. But they evolved stony armor because of life and death. (Well, the split from corals was earlier than the split from sponges, but I did say "at least". You can't really make the same argument before sex evolved. ... And then there are the bdellian roti
Re: (Score:3)
So, my statement about evolution conflicting with your religious beliefs was based on:
1) Your habit of posting absurdity whenever the topic of evolution comes up, especially including the deliberate use of bad faith argumentation techniques to create a false appearance of cogency.
2) Your quotation of a gnostic gospel in your sig.
So now you say that you agree with evolution. That's fine. That still doesn't add sensibility to anything else you have stated.
Re: (Score:3)
Any time someone refutes something you have posted, you respond with more of our abusive argument techniques. You accuse them of using logical fallacies that they did not make, or you take a snippet of something they said and re-state it back, but with a slightly altered context, to make it seem to mean something else, or you commit a logical fallacy of your own, or you just label it something silly like "absurdly reductionistic" without explaining your reasoning, or you just ignore it completely and move
Re: (Score:3)
My guess was that he was incorrect when he asserted the evolution did not disagree with his religion. I can't call it a lie, because he doesn't seem self-aware enough on this point.
And his displayed knowledge of evolution is so wrong, that he literally could not make a sensible argument against actual evolution theory. So what his arguments are against is against his understanding of the theory. And since is understanding of the theory is so wrong, the thing he's arguing against is, factually, incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligent design is not our past but our future.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution isn't about you. It's about the DNA using you to propagate itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Wolves? Try poodles.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not slashdot specifically. The topic of trying to find elements that explain humanity is a very common one. What makes this story interesting is not just that it's an explanation of humanity, is that it can be explained in terms of specific genes that also had similar effects in other species, therefore it's more likely to lead to specific predictions rather than being a "just so" explanation.