|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 1, 2005 4:11:41 GMT -5
Britain is almost entirely dolichocephalic/mesocephalic territory. Very few Alpines in comparison to Nordics, Brunns, and Mediterraneans. Seeing as how the British were some of the most successful people in the world (they're the reason we're all speaking English on this board right now), I suppose they just hit a lucky streak, eh?
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Sept 1, 2005 4:13:55 GMT -5
God is Alpine.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Sept 1, 2005 4:21:42 GMT -5
And God said, "Let there be Alpines!" And there were Alpines.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 1, 2005 4:59:39 GMT -5
If you read the article, you will see that women who lived much longer past their reproductive age had more descendants than other women. This means that longevity in women is correlated with genetic fitness, as such women are able to pass on their genes to more descendnats. Hence, rather than being a "burden" on their offspring, long-lived women are actually more genetically fit. Also, the additional longevity of men is not a problem at all, since men are able to reproduce well into advanced age. I had read the whole article. You seem to put a lot of faith in this research if you think it can erase what is common wisdom, i.e. that human beings are substantially programmed to "let go" after fertility period. As Ponto would have said (btw, where is he?) when Mirkka Lahdenpera will multiply fishes and bread I will blindly believe his deductions, before that I'll believe the data and make my own deductions. Some comments on the study: "The researchers looked at 2,800 women living in two 18th and 19th century farming communities in Finland and Canada." Regrettably the 18th and 19th centuries are substantially meaningless in evolutionary terms. The reseach should have been done 17k years b.c.. However, the fact that the more longeve women had more offpring could be correlated only with their general better health condition, than with the help they give raising grandchildren. Also, monkeys give help to the extended family too: why then they do not survive long after menopause? What counts more is that menopause is bad for women organism, and weakens their defenses; now, how can this be explained if surviving after menopause is a positive trait, evolusionwise? Why should the loss of fertility coincide with a loss of fitness? As for men, they can reproduce at a late age, but they hardly do it, see any statistic. Finally, seems to me the populations with the shortest life span (Africa, India) are the one that are having more offspring, thus the fittest. The ones with the longest life span (Europe, Japan) are the less fit, to the point of disappearing.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Sept 1, 2005 5:32:54 GMT -5
I had read the whole article. You seem to put a lot of faith in this research if you think it can erase what is common wisdom, i.e. that human beings are substantially programmed to "let go" after fertility period. No, common wisdom is that human beings don't let go after their fertile period but go on living for many decades afterwards. Humans differ from animals in this respect, so longevity is a trait which has been selected in humans for some reason. That is irrelevant, since there is no evidence that these populations have genes that predispose them to a short life span.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Sept 1, 2005 5:48:26 GMT -5
Some comments on the study: "The researchers looked at 2,800 women living in two 18th and 19th century farming communities in Finland and Canada." Regrettably the 18th and 19th centuries are substantially meaningless in evolutionary terms. The reseach should have been done 17k years b.c.. Not necessarely. I'd say that women living in farming communities in the 18th and the 19th century Finland have had a very significant role for the genetic makeup of the modern Finns. The population on Finland has tenfolded since the 18th century. Finland actually was the European country with the highest birthdate and the largest families for the best part of the 19th century. Foreign travellers often commented on large families - even for the standards of the time - they saw in the rural Finland. Therefore it's not out of question for a woman who lived in Finland in the early 18th century to have tens of thousands of direct decendents. One of my female ancestors - living in the early 17th century to then exceptionally high age of 82 - has estimated 200 000 decendents. On the other hand a large number of people - as many as nine out of ten according to my friend who has a degree on Ethnography - living in that same period doesn't have any surviving direct decendents. In addition, the original study really makes sense in case of Finland, at least. In the Finnish rural communities grandparents really were the main caretakers for smaller children up until the 20th century. Women in the childbaring age were working in the fields, looking after the lifestock and doing the heavier housework. Small children were left to their siblings or to their grandparents. A baby had, generally speaking, better chances of surviving in the hands of an adult than a 7-8 years old children.
|
|
|
Post by MC anunnaki on Sept 1, 2005 6:07:02 GMT -5
And God said, "Let there be Alpines!" And there were Alpines. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 1, 2005 7:31:12 GMT -5
Thats a modern cultural problem and has nothing to do with genes though. Again, we are speaking about vital women in the age of 50-60, not our geriatric patients. Anyway, I see your point and the correlation of longer life with being generally more vital and having more children in young age under natural conditions which means NO contraception and early marriage with constant sexual contacts.
Modern cultures are no good examples because of their out of control and unnatural conditions which partly are against everything reasonable from the biological perspective and just results of human failures which have not that much to do with the involved genes.
F.e. in the past an aristocratic warrior would have had more wives, lets say 3, and would have been able to bring all their children through if they were healthy whereas a simple farmer or even more an unfree one wouldnt have been able to do the same - the best genes spread. Now such elite types often have almost no children, the own free class to few and immigrants of a low standard, supported by the group get the most. Of course thats not logical and a result of negative social constructs in the West which partly evolved just recently.
|
|
|
Post by Ilmatar on Sept 1, 2005 7:58:28 GMT -5
Agrippa, I actually think you are wrong. The powerful men in this society still tend to have more children than the average one. And they still are mothered by more than one woman. It's just that they have passed from the polygamy to the serial monogamy. But then again, the warrior types you are referring to might now be the average men, since warriors tend to have bigger muscles than brains, and it isn't the muscle power that counts in this World anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 1, 2005 10:10:15 GMT -5
Agrippa, I actually think you are wrong. The powerful men in this society still tend to have more children than the average one. And they still are mothered by more than one woman. It's just that they have passed from the polygamy to the serial monogamy. First, not all people which are famour are rich are really elite types! Secondly, they might have more women on average, but in our times not necessarily more children. Third we are speaking about populations, if lets say 50 percent of billionaires are in that category and have at least more than 3 children, whats still not too much, all the normal officers, managers, scientists etc., oftentimes much more of a real elite type than some plutocrats or pop stars, dont have more but less children, especially considering emancipation = so that women tend to want career and hedonism too, oftentimes as much or even more than men, that was different in the past, so chances of having many high quality families with above average children are much below prehistoric times whats contraselection. Thats not true, because at the time this types evolved, they had to fight intelligent and group oriented, no stupid muscle men fighting just on their own, those were more in the lower warrior classes, not at the peak, not in the cairns. Furthermore asocial, almost sociopathic types of urban specialisation might be partly more successful nowadays by exploiting the potential of traditional elite types in science, military, economy etc. Thats whats wrong nowadays, the best dont reproduce that often and are exploited by cheaters. Those sociopaths would have be a serious disadvantage in a healthy society, in a group selection regime, but unfortunately, modern Liberalcapitalistic states are the opposite of what would be good and healthy. Honest idealism and efficiency in many areas, being versatile doesnt lead to reproductive success, even on the contrary..
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Sept 1, 2005 10:34:02 GMT -5
That is irrelevant, since there is no evidence that these populations have genes that predispose them to a short life span. Actually, the same could be said for the women studied by the cited study. Couldn't their longest life span be just caused by their family habits? Habits that could be the reason for the greatest number of children. From a completely different viewpoint then, if you assume there is correlation between genes and culture, then the "cultural" reasons for the long life and low fertility of some nations could be genetic as well. Being careful keeps you alive, but also makes you choose better contraception methods. This may be true. But if in two centuries there has been a favourable selection for longeve women, what is this confronted with a milion years of selection that preferred short span life women, and that shaped human organism? It would be just one of the many "dysgenic" aspects of civilisation, as the one which rewards inability to put a condom on. I think Agrippa is right here instead. The society is dysgienc for its own values. If you take a school class of 13 years old people and look at their grades, they are exactly inversely proportional to their hope to have children. Same goes for income. A few womaniser plutocrats really can't make the difference, as they are too few, often they are not the brightest of the lot (people like Einstein or Ghoete are not remembered for spreading their genes ... soccer players are). and they get pregnant supermodels, who are not exactly known for their intellect. As I said many times though, I don't think this is a problem.
|
|
Bryce
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bryce on Sept 1, 2005 11:57:10 GMT -5
Anyhow, tall guys, I'll walk up to your graves on my 150 year-old legs, leaning on my cane, and I'll place flowers on your graves (or send them through Interflora). Hahahaha! ;D HahaHAAA! (I'm insisting)
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 1, 2005 12:07:31 GMT -5
explains why master yoda lived so long...
|
|
|
Post by Agrippa on Sept 1, 2005 12:12:49 GMT -5
Probably he was just shrinking
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Sept 1, 2005 12:14:26 GMT -5
Gravity is the enemy!
|
|