Humans are losing.

What genes are, though? I'm asking because I don't know. If not numbers, then what? We're talking about evolution, remember? Not subjective ideas about what genes are "better" than others. We're talking about the change in allele frequencies in human populations. That's necessarily going to be informed by the sizes of populations and the numbers of individuals that have certain genes. No, I get that. But we're still talking about numbers - the latter organism still has more copies of their genes in the gene pool. That's not happening to individuals living in the West. No, I'm saying the influence is abundantly clear - the wealthy reproduce a lot less. Wealth is maladaptive. Many, many more. How many of those grunts are leaving behind 3 or 4 children? How many of those officers are leaving behind 1, or 2, or none at all? The more educated you are, the less children you tend to have. Plenty. How many children does W have? How large was his family before him? Well, you could say that, but you would be wrong. Our populations birth rates have largely fallen below the death rate; in other words, we have negative population growth. And in the West, that hardly represents a regression to K; our biomes could support many, many more human beings than they do now, particularly in America. We're not coming into equilibrium with our environment, our lifestyle choices are putting our population in decline. Africa's population growth is the fastest of any reigon in the world. Like I've been saying you really need to be looking at the reality of human population growth.

That's all I'm saying. Neither do I. But its quite likely there are some. Differential survival rates, however caused. At the moment. We can't extrapolate that too far in the future because, as I have pointed out, a lot of things may change and the most rapidly reproducing populations may be ultimately disadvantaged because of it, so they finally end up with less genetic representation. You are just observing a temporary trend specific to our particular generation. The is no reason to expect this trend to be sustainable or to continue indefinitely. The first part is generally true, but the second part doesn't necessarily follow. Ever think that the wealthy might be able to afford to reproduce less without a loss of much fitness because the survival and reproductive success of their offspring is far more assured? I don't think wealth is at all maladaptive. It secures resouces essential for human fertility, even if it happems to correlate with reduced fecundity. All that does is give us some breathing room to find was to stbilize our resource consumption before K is reached. And it will inevitably be reached. But it will happen other places first and thats where you will see big fitness reductions for all the 'breeder' populations.But really, Crash - I can't spell it out any better.
Its not just how many children you have, but how many survive to produce children that also have a chance to survive to reproduce.We can't fully analyze the population-level consequences of high human reproductive rates within one or two generations and link that to long term fitness functions of these populations.If I have two cages in a wheat field and I infest each with equal numbers of a different strain of greenbug aphids (a high reproductive rate vs. a low) for a fixed period before opening the cage, which will have higher fitness when the cage is opened ?
The cages will prevent predation and parasitism so the aphids virtually grow uncontrolled (like humans, pretty much) and eventually kill all their wheat.
The answer is it depends entirely on how long I leave them protected. If I open the cages in one week, the high rep. strain will have produced the largest number of alate migrants and have the higher fitness. If I leave them for 4 weeks, the high rep. strain will all be dead because it only took them 2 weeks to kill their plants, and the low rep. strain, having used less of their resources, will still be alive and have higher fitness.So I guess that's how I see us as humans in some ways - a bunch of insects breeding uncontrolled in different cages Now I *really* have to finish this MS review....

Survival is irrelevant. Everybody dies, after all. What's relevant is reproduction, and we aren't doing that much of it here in the West. That's evidence of reduced fitness. Yeah, I did think this, EZScience. And then I looked at the data. And what I saw was that Western populations are in decline, and populations in "developing" reigons are growing sharply.The data disproves your speculation, EZ. That's what I'm trying to get at, here. If the avaliability of better health care etc. to the wealthy was offsetting their lower birth rates, they'd have comparible population growth.But they don't. Ergo, we know that being wealthy in the West isn't enough to offset the reduced birth rate. No, EZ, I get that. What you don't seem to get yet is that it still doesn't matter. The greater percentage of offspring that survive to parenthood in the West still doesn't offset the greater absolute birth rate in developing nations. And, again, the proof of this is the declining birth rate in the West, a trend that began decades ago and has only accellerated since.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-03-2006 02:34 PM

In the immediate sense, for those individuals, yes. I would argue that achieving comparable population growth would not be in the best interest of our long term fitness. These high reproducing populations haven't yet faced the real crunch they are headed for. Fine, but that reduced birth rate may be what saves our 'fitness' in the longer term. Surely you're not in favor of indefinite, unlimited population growth? The planet's 'sustainable' carrying capacity has been estimated at around 2-3 billion. We are over 6 and heading for 8. You seem totally fixated on birth rates.
Yes, number of children is an important (primary) determinant of 'individual fitness'.
But it is our 'population fitness' we should be more concerned with.
I have pointed out that there are many other factors that will ultimately limit the fitness of various populations above and beyond their birth rate, and that a high population birth rate may be ultimately detrimental to the future fitness of individuals within those populations.

Evolution doesn't plan ahead, so our "long-term fitness" is irrelevant. We're shaped by the environment we live in now, not the environment future individuals might inhabit. I'm "fixated" on the relevant facts, something you seem prepared to completely dismiss. The facts are, the alleles of the developing world are increasining in frequency across the human gene pool, while the alleles of the West are decreasing in frequency.That's it. End of story. That's evolution. If you want to talk about fitness, that's the fitness. Our alleles represent less fitness because they're being selected out of the population over time. Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, it's irrelevant. That's a possible future environment. Our environment right now selects against alleles whose carriers live in the West.That's it. End of story.

This makes no sense.
No one said anything about evolution being prescient.
Of course we are shaped by our current environment.
If we are talking about the trajectory of human evolution, how is our long term fitness in geographically separate populations NOT relevant?
We are quite capable of predicting the impact of a lot of our activities on the planet and on its ability to sustain human life in various regions. Please show me a fact that I am dismissing. Only if you consider the 'human gene pool' to be one effective population 'N(sub)e', which it isn't. You are OK until you say 'across the human gene pool'. These high rates of reproduction are largely localized in the basket-case countries.
Except for the fortunate emigrants that get to join the gene pool in developed countries, most of their progeny remain 'in situ' with increasingly bleak prospects for the survival of their alleles, regardless of how quickly they replicate them. Now Crash, you're getting careless. You haven't said one word about 'selection' yet. Your entire argument has hinged on differential birth rates.
*I* am the one arguing that differential survival through various forms of selection can potentially render current differences in birth rates ultimately meaningless. So tell me please, what is this environmental force that is causing our genes to be 'selected out' of the population?
Because all you have done so far is talk about their relative rates of replication. That seems a bit arbitrary. Fond of the last word are we ? This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2006 02:54 PM

Because we can't predict that environment; we can only observe the current environment. You're speculating from things you cann't possibly know. I'm merely projecting from what facts are known, now. The facts of what populations are now increasing, and what populations are now decreasing. You've consistently handwaved this reality away. It is, moreso now than at any other time. It's a "global village." There's no reproductive isolation for any but the most marginal subpopulations. There's certainly no isolation for the major human ethnic groups. People are travelling all over the world, and having sex when they do. That's gene flow. Again, a completely erroneous statement. We know that this is not true, because regions like Africa have had consistently high growth rates for generations, now. Prospects for the survival of a large number of progeny are very high in those countries. That's a completely, totally different thing than the prospects for having a decent life, which is the distinction I'm trying to get you to see. How do you think we detect selection? The change in populations. And I haven't disagreed with the potential of that being the case. But the reality is, there's no such counterselection occuring. This is proven by the differential in population growth.You're talking about potential. I'm telling you what is real. It's pretty simple. The avaliability of birth control and social factors that lead people to believe that having fewer children is better than having many, or that having them later in life is better than having them sooner. The "environment" is that people are choosing to have less children, and have them later in life, here in the West.I mean, duh. What did you think it was?

Really. The earth isn’t approaching unsustainable population growth. Global warming and habitat destruction isn’t going to make survival more difficult for those in developing countries? You sure you want to contest this? I feel I have clearly addressed the question of how differences in birth rates can have little bearing on the long term fitness of disparate geographic populations. Current differences in rates of population increase may have little to do with the ultimate genetic makeup of the future human race. Maybe on a technological level, but not on a genetic level. You’re saying that everyone has an equal chance to mate with anyone else of the opposite sex wherever they are in the world? Because that’s the definition of effective population size. That group of individuals that has a non-zero possiblity of interbreeding. You mean the ones with the highest birth rates you referred to? You are only helping to prove my point here. But for how much longer can this be sustained before it reaches an asymptote, in your educated opinion ? We hypothesize a selective force and design an experiment to test for its influence, neither of which you have managed to do. Which could be due to random drift or stochastic events that influence survival in a density-independent manner.
Many explanations other than selection are possible.
What is your hypothesis regarding the mechanism of *selection* that dooms us to genetic extinction in the western world? You haven’t answered this question.
You are trying to infer the action of selection a posteriori without even postulating a mechanism. Which you apparently conclude can continue ad infinitum. How can you be so sure there is no counterselection against profligate reproduction ? (Oh, that the selective force could be stronger here!). If it were acting, but currently affecting population growth less than birth rates, how would you detect it?
You assume its absence without testing for it. Fine. Now you need to provide convincing evidence that these behavior patterns will inevitably lead to reduced average fitness of the local human population. I have already provided convincing reasons why this may not necessarily be the case.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2006 09:20 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2006 09:23 PM

Why would I contest it, when it proves my point? Which ultimate? Who said anything about "ultimate"? What makes you think that the factors you're talking about will be the last factors to influence human genetics? That is what you're asserting, is it not? I mean, what else does "ultimate" mean?What is undisputable is that the factors that I've described have been going on long enough to already be shaping our current genetics (in ways we don't yet know anything about.) It's the present we're talking about, not the unknown future. Funny, I missed that definition in Genetics. Could you cite that, please? Er, wait. Now, which was it? An equal chance? Or a non-zero chance? Do you think you could refrain from contradicting yourself in the space to two sentences? It makes your posts very hard to follow. The discussion would proceed more readily if you made a greater effort to be clear. Does a massive, growing, expanding, emigrating population sound like something I would describe as "marginal" to you?No, I don't mean those. I was referring to tiny insular populations like the Pennsylvanian Amish, or Jewish populations that are strict about their members marrying within dogma.Seriously. Is this a discussion you're really interested in having? Because it's starting to look like you're more interested in jerking me around. Why does it matter? We're talking about what's going on now, not what might happen in the future. Are you even reading my posts? You're not even reading them, are you? If you're already tuning me out only 20 posts in, what hope is there for discussion with you? Ad infinitum? When did I say that? I don't know who you're arguing with at this point, EZ, because you're sure not responding to anything I'm writing. What on Earth gave you the idea that I thought this would go on forever? There's really no hope that you've actually been reading my posts at all, is there.

quote:

---

geeky boys with glasses and inhalers still don't get laid.

---

When they pull down six figures in the aerospace or compuer engineer fields, they most certainly do.

Because women are gold-digging bitches?Seriously, Schraf, that's a stereotype that I'm shocked to see you perpetuate.

Crash, I have read every word of your posts and you haven't postulated any selective mechanism. If you did what is it? You have only paid lip service to selection after you failed to defend your argument based on differential birth rates alone. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I simply meant that the proximal trends you point to cannot be used to imply long term outcomes. Effective population size

quote:

---

...for the theory of population genetics what matters is the chance that two copies of a gene will be sampled as the next generation is produced, and this is affected by the breeding structure of the population.

---

Since the genes of a Zimbabwe hooker have little chance of recombining with yours (presumably) you are both members of different 'effective' populations. Technically, you amay belong to the same gene pool, but functionally you don't. That's the point. Pick either. Your effective population size of 'planet earth' fails both criteria. I am not yet aware of any lack of respect on my part, although this could be considered to approach it on yours. Sorry. You lost me completely. I thought one of the main reasons we were interested in evolutionary biology was because it gave us some insights into what to expect of living things in the future, based on what we understand about the forces shaping their biology. Is this not the case? Yes, and its getting boring because you don't answer direct questions.
With every post your replies seem to get more flippant.What is this selective force you refer to that is eliminating the alleles of western people from the global gene pool?You are not going to slip out of this careless statement. Your inference that higher birth rates rates in certain populations would inevitably translate into higher fitness in those populations.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2006 10:17 PMThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-03-2006 10:19 PM

quote:

---

Because women are gold-digging bitches?

---

Women are supposed to be attracted to good providers, aren't we?...evolutionarily-speaking?How is that different from men as a group being attracted to young women no matter how old they themselves get?Men as a group are attracted to youthful women because they can still father babies and spread their genes for pretty much their whole lives.

Post 22. That was like 5 posts ago.What's wrong here? Who said anything about long-term? Sure, things are going to change. I get that, EZ.So what? You offered the way things might be in the future to counter how things are now. How does that make any sense to you?Populations are declining in the West and increasing, dramatically, in the developing world; that's changing the allele frequencies in the human species and isn't being counteracted by a ecologically-driven population crash in the developing world because that isn't happening yet.Seriously. How hard is this to follow? So, no Africans ever leave Africa? No American goes to Zimbabwe? No Somali immigrant in Minnesota has ever married and had children outside her culture?If we're talking about me, personally, there's little if any chance of my genes recombining with anybody but my wife's, anbd likewise for her. Are you telling me that we don't belong to any reproductive population at all? That we're, essentially, our own species?You're not making any sense. You're certainly not looking at the reality. It's certainly the case that you seem to have completely lost track of what we were talking about. You were defending this position, if you'll recall:

quote:

---

We are severely suppressing selection on the human gene pool by enhancing everyone's reproductive success.

---

I mean, you pretty much seem to have completely abandoned this position, instead choosing to argue, ludicrously, that selection is working against people who live in Africam, despite their genes increasing in frequency in the human gene pool.How is that a claim I'm supposed to take seriously? I'm getting frustrated because you've chosen to repay my attempt to engage you in interesting debate with nonsense. To substitue evidence with speculation. And to consistently misconstrue my posts, even though anybody can go back less than 5 posts and see how I precisely answered the questions you claim I haven't.I'm being just as polite as you deserve. If you don't appreciate the tenor that this "discussion" is headed towards, make the effort to modify your own behavior and start addressing the discussion honestly. I've already told you where to start. It's not hard. Post 22. 5 posts ago. How hard is it to read? I've more than answered this question. "translate into?" That's what fitness is. Those populations are growing. Ours are declining. Their alleles are more frequent, and ours are less, over time. That's fitness. What happens in the future might change the fitness, but that's not a rebuttal because it hasn't happened yet.

You mean, how is one dismissive, throwback gender stereotype different than the first? Not really that different, I guess.When you say "men as a group" I read that as "every single man."