Dumb move, but I hope it wasn't over a girl...(NWS)

[Raging Lamb]

Originally Posted by Miguel

if variability becomes advantages by chance then how does that advantage become a sustainable advantagous leading to evolution. I believe you are putting 'chance' on a high horse that is easily overpowered by the ability to learn and adapt. Learning and adaptation occur both in response to environmental and situational stimuli AS WELL as chance. However to leave chance as the single alpha omega of evolution is impossible.

I understand in this case where the disagreement is. I was trying to explain the basic principles behind evolution, that's why I was talking about DNA strands and genes. An advantageous variation becomes a sustained advantage if the selective pressure on the organism/gene remains unchanged.

Originally Posted by Miguel

to use the term 'better' would be incorrect as you assume that all reproducing genes are advantageous.

Again I was talking about an advantageous variability in one gene (not advantagous genes in general) to explain basic principles of evolutionary change.

Originally Posted by Miguel

A disease for example would qualify as being advantageous due to it's ability to reproduce within it's environment. The problem here is that you assume that A = B and B = C however A =/= C so the theory is inheritantly flawed.

You mean a gene that would lead to disease? If a gene resuting in disease would have properties that cause it to reproduce efficiently, then it will do so and spread through the human genome. This is in fact how many diseases spread through the genome. It's not a flaw in the theory, it is an experimentally veryfiable fact. Like I tried to say before:

Natural selection works at the level of genes. Even genes within one organism can be in competition; for a good review of this refer to: The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, and for a source for intragenomic conflicts and behavior: William Rice & Brett Holland.

Originally Posted by Miguel

Also, basing evolution on gene adaptation to it's surroundings itself is proposterous since it doesn't account for behavioural traits in humans. There is no environmental advantage in being a better singer or a better artist yet these skills are learned and passed from generation to generation which is an evolution within itself.

It's not proposterous, that's what sociobiologists in fact claim (see Wilson & Hamilton). And about singing, now you're talking about learned skills being passed on through learning. Do you think skills are genetically transmitted? And how do you know singing for example is not advantagous? If you look at other species, e.g. birds, healthier individuals with less parasites etc were better singers, this allowed females to pick better healthier mates, so singing in that species became advantageous. I'm not saying people are birds, I'm just trying to show how singing could be advantageous.

Originally Posted by Miguel

while true, in order for your statement to stand true it would have to be present in 100% of the offspring of suicidal people

Sorry that confuses me, I think that's the opposite of what I am trying to say.

Originally Posted by Miguel

Although suicide is not a genetic trait

Great, end of discussion - just kidding

Originally Posted by Miguel

the syptoms linked with it are. Diseases that have been linked to suicidal people such as manic depression, learning disabilities, ADHD, etc. are all genetic traits that can be handed down to offspring (through genes AND through Environmental stimuli and increase a person's chances of being mentally unstable in the future

.

Very briefly:
Depression, LD, ADHD -> Chronic conditions with genetic, neurological, cognitive and behavioural markers.

Suicide -> An action. Any physiological/cognitive/behavioural states that are present while a person commits suicide, are not unique to suicide, but are characteristic of the chronic conditions named above. Therefore they do not seperate suicide as an independent trait or state with distinct genetic/neurological/cognitive/behavioural underpinnings.

Originally Posted by Miguel

If what you are implying were true, disease would have been eradicated after 1 generation.

That's the exact opposite of what I was saying. Because diseases like cancer take affect after the individual has reproduced, any genes contributing to cancer will be passed on before the person carrying them dies. Therefore these genes will keep getting passed on. This will happen over and over again, and such diseases will never die out.

Originally Posted by Miguel

Based on your theory that suicide is not natural selection (thus implying that the diseases that lead a person to be "suicidal" are not genetically passed on but rather solely based on adaptations to environment

the conditions that can lead to suicide (but in the majority of cases don't) are heritable, but the action itself is not. Suicide itself is not heritable as an independent trait seperate from such conditions.

Originally Posted by Miguel

it would be acceptable to conclude that cancer victims are reactions to an environment and their elimination would eradicate the environment in which they reproduce.

thus eliminating cancer.

1. I don't think I ever said that
2. I can't really say I know what you mean.

[sirex]

Very briefly:
Depression, LD, ADHD -> Chronic conditions with genetic, neurological, cognitive and behavioural markers.

Suicide -> An action. Any physiological/cognitive/behavioural states that are present while a person commits suicide, are not unique to suicide, but are characteristic of the chronic conditions named above. Therefore they do not seperate suicide as an independent trait or state with distinct genetic/neurological/cognitive/behavioural underpinnings.

that was good

[Raging Lamb]

"Genetic contributions to personality have been estimated (by extensive research) to be at most 20%, the rest (at least 80%) being attributed to non genetic factors (see studies by James T. Bouchard).
"

20 percent is fairly high percentage.

At least 80% of personality is determined by non genetic factors. <- that's the point.



This man is not the only person in possession of the genes in his body, he has relatives with whom he shares some genetic traits. You are again over-estimating genetic contribution. Did you know that even with a highly heritable disorder such as Schizophrenia, even with monozygotic twins (i.e genetically identical from birth), if one twin has the disorder, the chance of the other twin having it as well is only 50%?

this man is the only man that posses his genes.. his relatives will have similar genes but not his exact ones.

Have you heard of inclusive fitness and kin selection?

the chance of the other twin having it as well is only 50%

50% is a very high probability.

I hope you're kidding. Even with ~ 100% sharing of genes, two personalities are still not identical! The point is non-genetic contribution. You're missing the point.


If that were the case, suicide would be much more prevalent, and extremely non-random, a condition with identifiable genetic traits. For example ADHD is highly heritable. Although there is not one gene that contributes to it, its occurence can be significantly attributed to heritability, and it can be traced through heritability. This is not the case with suicide. Again, you're over-estimating genetic contributions.

maybe you dont know how many suicides happen per day in North America... It is said that in Toronto alone it is something like 10 to 20 people per day.. Thats alot of people if you ask me.

I think again, you are missing my point.

And don't forget that chemical balances and imbalances in the brain at any given moment are very highly dependent on non-genetic factors.

Not entirely true. As most hormones in your body are created by cells in your body that read out RNA strands then go about creating these hormones it is VERY dependant on your genes. Infact, everything in your body, its iternal clock, if you will, is all set in your genes. Something takes place because your DNA begins the task.

I think you are not putting enough stress on DNA and Genes my friend. You said several times that we are over stressing how genes play a role in all of it... But your genes are in your DNA and everything in your body is created by DNA... DNA is your genes, and you brain and other organs, which are created by your DNA.. So really everything is conected and relies on each other. So I dont see you can say your chemical balance in your brain is not related to your genes, because clearly organs and other cells create these chemicals anyway at certian times and only behave because your DNA has mapped it out for the hormones to be released at certain times..


Therefore someone that may be deficient in releasing hormone x, at time period T, may be more suseptible to do something illogical, then a person who has the right ammount of hormone x at the right time period.

The body and its proteins are coded for by genes. The brain is made up of cells built by genes, however the brain is severly sculpted by the environment even before the infant is born, and even more by experience. If you are familiar with the concept of neuroplasticity, you will know that the nervous system is not as rigidly and strictly controled by genes as say, the liver. Otherwise humans would be incapable of learning, memory and cognition.

We still haven't figured out how all our genes work and how they intriquitly connect everything.
Infact there are many many years of reasearch ahead until we can be sure of all of this..



anyway this interesting!!! tell me more

That I agree with.

[Raging Lamb]

I'm going to be at a lab tomorrow with an evolutionary psychologists studying the genetics of ADHD. I'll ask if suicide is a genetic trait

Good night.

[sirex]

At least 80% of personality is determined by non genetic factors. <- that's the point.


bah, but that still means that 20% of your personality is determined by genetic factors. Thats a large percentage if you think about how it will end up shaping who you become. That was my point!! Does this make sense?



I cannot disprove the rest of your arguments, infact I agree with them, its just new material that Ive never read before so I have difficulty believing it all/comprehending it all. I am not any more educated on the subject at hand. All Ive got is grade 12 biology under my belt, and by the looks of it, youve taken some pretty serious courses in psychology, and biology. Maybe we can have this discussion in a year from now when Ive become more educated on the subject at hand.

[Raging Lamb]

Originally Posted by sirex

At least 80% of personality is determined by non genetic factors. <- that's the point.


bah, but that still means that 20% of your personality is determined by genetic factors. Thats a large percentage if you think about how it will end up shaping who you become. That was my point!! Does this make sense?



I cannot disprove the rest of your arguments, infact I agree with them, its just new material that Ive never read before so I have difficulty believing it all/comprehending it all. I am not any more educated on the subject at hand. All Ive got is grade 12 biology under my belt, and by the looks of it, youve taken some pretty serious courses in psychology, and biology. Maybe we can have this discussion in a year from now when Ive become more educated on the subject at hand.

Just grade 12 Bio??? I'm very impressed. Your explanation of evolution with the example of hairy vs non hairy people was great.
Anyhow, I really enjoyed (am still enjoying) this discussion, it was very educational.

[sirex]

^^ I think thats the one i deleted.