Evolution and RacismFollow

Which would be great if viscious snarl-beasts and wangdoodlers weren't waiting in the snozzberry bushes.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2006 at 12:50pm EDT by NephthysWanderer

But were we created with Racism built into us, or is it a trait that evolved over time.

off you go. . .

Probably. Most social mammals aren't excited to see rival packs/herds. Particularly among omnivores and carnivores.

There's hope for you yet Flea.

We will always evolve according to our environment though. The fact our environment is more suited to our survival (which is arguable when you take into account things like pollution), doesn't mean we won't make major adaptations. Only that we will evolve differently.

In other words, the fact we don't need to be taller to reach a banana (cos we have ladders) only means we'll adapt to ladder-climbing.

To take a simple example.

But our "need" for evolution is just as strong. In 10,000 years time we'll be very different physiologically (and genetically) than we are today, no matter how many ladders we build, or how little we need to do to use them.

With all deference to the superior brains of my hunk o'love, certain physiological changes have evolved among certain populations as a response to their environment. For example, the denizens of Cuzco have larger-than-average hearts and flattened red blood cells that enable them to absorb more oxygen so that they don't pass out and vomit all the time from the higher altitude.

No, but the physiological adaptations are passed on from one generation to the next, i.e. genetic. It's not just about how we look, but our adaptations to the environment.

I was probably high

But waht htis is saying that the species that are ill-equipped die off while the ones that are better equipped flourish.

But this doesn't account for a species actually changing... or evolving... it merely involves the more fit species surviving.


Wasn't Darwin's whole thing about different breeds of animals landing on..say the Galopagos Islands... and then actually changing to meet the demands of the environment?

That is Darwinian evolution, aka "Survival of the Fittest".

Those animals who are most able to fill an ecological niche will out-breed inferior members of their species. The individual animals don't change (that's Lamarckism) but the traits of the species as a whole slowly changes over time.

So, no species ever "evolves" or changes into another species then? It's all just that some die off while others thrive...



So then why do people use evolution to account for the begingings of life/creation and all of that crap?


and on that note, Then where DID any new species come from?

Does this mean that we could de-evolve?
Like.. any major advatages... would become null and suddenly everyone is reduced to a fat lazy slob?

Oh wait.. that's already started.



also.. waht about the general rules of attraction? They say that symetrical people are the ones that are most attractive..... so does that mean that in 500,000 years we're gonna be a race of super-models?

No individual animal changes into another species.

To use the classic Darwinian example, pretend you have an island and, on this island, you have a population of finches. These finches all have long pointed beaks and long legs for hanging onto the stems of thistle plants and pulling the small seeds out of the spikey tops.

Now imagine that the finch population is enough to start to eat all the available thistle seeds and now you have a some hungry finches who attempt to eat the heavier pine nuts that have fallen to the ground. Some may prove more adept at this than others because they randomly have stronger, thicker beaks or shorter legs to support themselves on the ground or whatever. Because the thistle-eaters are starving off, those capable of eating nuts are stronger and healthier and are best able to mate and, of course, they mate with other nut eaters. Their babies, coming from two nut-eating finches are more likely to also show the traits better suited to eating nuts. This doesn't mean all the thistle eaters have died though and, as the thistle population recovers, you see a rebound in thistle finches as well as the nut finches. At this point, perhaps the nut finches find it easier to stay were the nuts are rather than try to cling to a stem and pick thistles with their shorter legs and beaks and the thistle finches find it easier to remain among the thistles. Over time, the two populations may become increasingly divergent through inbreeding with their own kind until they become distinct subspecies and then, eventually their genetic codes are different enough that they've become seperate species.

This was an amazingly super-simplified version of events since evolution doesn't occur that quickly. It's just to illustrate how different members of a single species may, over time, adapt and change to fill an open ecological niche. This could be due to food supply, climate, predators, attracting mates, surviving disease or whatever.

One thing that Darwinian evolution does NOT attempt to do is explain the very genesis of life. There's various theories about how we arrived from the primal goo, but Charles Darwin wasn't a guy who was trying to explain it.