Ask A Scientist

[quote=Toshabi][quote=YayaFTW] [quote=Toshabi] I thought this was a science thread. [/quote] It was, until Religion stepped in. You missed the fun of it lol. [/quote] Oh. In that case [IMG]http://i42.tinypic.com/10xts9x.png[/IMG][/quote]

[quote=MyRepublic]Is it that time again? In that case [IMG]http://i1064.photobucket.com/albums/u379/TheRyver/hellyeaspiderman_zps1cae8ebe.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

[quote=Valkenhyn][quote=MrCuddowls] Not really If unattractive people never reproduce, then they won't pass on their genes. If people prefer to have sex with attractive people, than unattractive people (in the sense of what we currently call unattractive) will simply disappear. There won't be a group of unattractive people, there just won't be unattractive people at all. [/quote] How attractive people are is based on a whole load of characteristics (face shape, skin quality, body proportions, body symmetry & many many other things which are controlled by not only genetics but also epigenetics and general developmental processes both pre- and post-birth so no they wont disappear. Insinuating that simple Mendelian genetics can be bluntly to such a complex issue is so short sighted and ignorant it offends me[/quote]

[quote=Valkenhyn]anywho...Bio, I kinda missed a lot of this thread, but I gathered that you're a chemist. Have you ever done any work with plants, extracting macro-molecules etc? I'm a field botanist so the lab thing is not so much my speed but I've done a bit of work with extraction and the like...[/quote]

[quote=Valkenhyn]Skid u seem to actually understand the fundamentals of evolution ^_^ Most people don't understand that it isn't truly "survival of the fittest" but actually "survival of the most productive (reproductively speaking)" on ur note though another rather interesting theory about current human evolution that I've seen is that by generally excluding violent people from the normal mating populace we are, in a sense, domesticating ourselves[/quote]

[quote=YayaFTW][quote=SkidmarkD] But is it because we 'remove' the violent people, or is it because we teach our kids to be less violent? [/quote] A bit of both if you ask me. It is true that human beings are more civilized now. We tend to go for reasoning first and, if necessary, control ourselves instead of being violent. Education and law were the main factors behind this improvement. However, violence still exists under many facets that tend to not be as noticed as the common cases of violence. Let's take domestic violence in some 3rd world countries. They actually call domestic violence "Education". They claim that a man who beats his wife and kids is doing a good job in educating them. The law can't help the victims, and a wife being beated up just because she stayed late at work or the kid getting hit several times to the point he has blues everywhere, because he had a bad mark in school is seen as a common and normal behavior, while the man is seen as the one who is right, therefore can claim the right to "educate in his own way" his family. Human evolution doesn't concern everyone unfortunately. We can safely say that 1st world countries are more prone to successful human evolution than 3rd world countries, which nowadays still face issues the likes of US and european countries solved back in the 90's.[/quote]

[quote=Bioalchemist][quote=Valkenhyn] anywho...Bio, I kinda missed a lot of this thread, but I gathered that you're a chemist. Have you ever done any work with plants, extracting macro-molecules etc? I'm a field botanist so the lab thing is not so much my speed but I've done a bit of work with extraction and the like... [/quote] a botanist? fantastic! I never actually took a single botany class during my academic experience and I wish I had. so unfortunately the answer is no. when we where harvesting bacteria we combed through a number of corn fields and plated bacteria from that but that is the closest I have gotten to working with plants..which well..that isn't really working with them. botany is something I really should have looked into more...what I did study about plants and their genetic material has always interested me. glad to hear though that you are in the science field we need as many as we can get no?[/quote]

[quote=Bioalchemist][quote=SkidmarkD] The main evolution I see in the future is where mankind become weaker. We are currently treating symptoms of things that used to kill us. Enabling people that would've either died or be left unable to procreate a few hundred years ago, to live and thrive and have many kiddies. Thus passing on their genes, genes that wouldn't have been passed on back when naural selection was still the case. We are treating the symptoms, not fixing the problem. Another evolution is one where the average intelligence drops. Intelligent, educated people have fewer children than the not so educated peeps. With the current healthcare and social standards, these kids will most probably all live. (they didn't in the olden days) The former have an everage of less than 2 children, not enough to sustain 'their population', while the latter have 3+ kids, expanding 'their population', almost doubling it every 2 generations. [/quote] indeed. these are solid points. scary to think that an uneducated mass will come to control the majority population but we have seen this trend of human reproduction for quite awhile so the shift has already begun. I also look at the genetic traits that without social construct and technology would surely fail such as my awful eyesight. without corrective lenses to allow me to see I would be screwed..seriously...but because of my eyesight I was directed into a certain line of work. if my eyesight was perfect would I have still chosen to be a chemist? again our evolution is unique due to our social constructs and our ability to create advance technology to supplement 'bad genetics'[/quote]

[quote=Bioalchemist][quote=Valkenhyn] How attractive people are is based on a whole load of characteristics (face shape, skin quality, body proportions, body symmetry & many many other things which are controlled by not only genetics but also epigenetics and general developmental processes both pre- and post-birth so no they wont disappear. Insinuating that simple Mendelian genetics can be bluntly to such a complex issue is so short sighted and ignorant it offends me [/quote] don't be too offended. cuddowls makes a lot of statements like that. he is still young and a bit uneducated. he tries though.[/quote]

[quote=YayaFTW][quote=Bioalchemist] If my eyesight was perfect would I have still chosen to be a chemist? [/quote] I think this question is more related to fate than to evolution. I could also say that if you had a great eyesight maybe you'd have been the US president at some point. Was your bad eyesight the reason you chose to study chemistry? I don't really understand :P[/quote]