Page 9 of 11 [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

wendigopsychosis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 471
Location: United States

07 May 2010, 6:17 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
wendigopsychosis wrote:
white people also have a higher occurrence of blue eyes, does this mean that neanderthals had blue eyes and homosapiens didn't?

It just means homosapiens have moved to colder climates with less sunlight. Each generation born in such a climate tends to get lighter complected. Their eyes go from dark to light, too.


I know, I know. I wasn't being serious, I was just trying to think up a quick example showing how just because white people have something, and neanderthals and caucasians interbred, it doesn't mean that the traits came from neanderthals.


_________________
:heart: I'm an author and public speaker on autism, gender, and sexuality :heart:
:heart: Read my articles @ http://kirstenlindsmith.wordpress.com :heart:
:heart: Follow updates @ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kirsten- ... 9135232493 :heart:


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 May 2010, 6:21 pm

Oh, I agree with you, Wendi! Where is legitimate proof this Neanderthal Theory has any validity to it whatsoever? So far, what's been presented appears dubious at best.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

07 May 2010, 8:14 pm

alana wrote:
I'm starting to think difference in general is a big deal, apparently blue is a different category than green or brown but I can't remember how right off the bat,

Maybe you are semi-remembering the proposed inheritance pattern? Blue eyes are considered "recessive" which is to say that to have blue eyes one must inherit two copies of alleles coding for blue eyes. So in theory two parents with blue eyes, each only have alleles coding for blue eyes and so can only produce blue eyed children, whereas brown or green eyed (or one of each) parents could have one allele each coding for blue eyes and so could produce a blue eyed child together.
Quote:
I think these genetic mutations probably fascinate the tribe as long as they aren't disabling (and maybe even if they are) and are sometimes considered desirable just out of uniqueness. So the first blue eyed people must have been pretty prized, though this seems like it would make a difference only in societies with a low survival rate/lifespan. I know that there are pets whose features started as genetic mutations (like peke faced cats) that are now highly prized features, and animals bred by humans to accent certain traits that are actually detrimental, like collie-type dogs that are bred with skulls too small for their brains or bulldogs that are incapable of breeding naturally.

Blue eyes might also have occured due to loss of pigmentation along side the loss of pigmentation from skin. This would not be selected for as strongly as pale skin in areas with less sunlight (where the pale skin mitigates against low vitamin D levels by allowing for more effective vitamin D synthesis) because it would not have the same bearing on an issue significant to survival (as being able to effectively synthesize vitamin D). I actually do not know much about blue eyes so I am entirely speculating I should add.

What I do know is that because they are largely "recessive" they are under less selective pressure in either direction. Because an individual has to have two alleles in most instances to have blue eyes, a lot of people can carry and perpetuate one allele without it having any influence on their survival whatseover (because it is not expressed). So any pressure in either direction only has any effect when a single person gets two alleles for blue eyes, leaving a lot of uneffected "carriers" of the genetic material.

Quote:
I would rather think of aspergers as being a different way of being rather than a defective way of being. Because NTs differ from me in ways that I am not all that impressed by.

The eugenics movement that culminated last century in the attrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime was premised on the notion that some humans were "atavistic", everything from "feeble mindedness" to "recidivist criminality" was construed as being the result of atavism. So the idea that some people might have "throw back" traits from "less evolved" ancestors is not new and in fact was the founding and core premise of the eugenics movement and "eugenics science".

The Neanderthal theory is positing that traits currently deemed undesirable by most people, are an atavistic "throw back" to what is currently very much widely thought of as a "less evolved" and worse "unfit", "redundant", "failed to make the grade" life form. The average person hearing that is going to think AS is not just a difference, but a disorder resulting from having defunct DNA from a less evolved, less human species. Furthermore, it's difficult to see precisely how such a conclusion would be wrong if incidents of Autism are simply freak occurences of Neanderthalism.



alana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,015

08 May 2010, 3:22 am

I have spiritual beliefs that are in contradiction to the way that some people interpret evolution and natural selection (this is in response to the 'post about 'atavisistic' traits). So it doesn't matter to me about atavistic traits or that label because those people who are doing the labeling are clearly morons.


It's really not surprising to me at all that NT traits would outlast spectrum ones in some cases. It seems only when you get a large enough population together in one place is it possible for that population to value anything that in my opinion makes life worth living. Tribal cultures are innately about breeding and survival of infants. Gays and women seem to fare better in large cultures with cities than in tribal cultures. I suppose it could be because that culture already has a significant population. And of course this is not true across the board as some polynesian cultures practice polyandry and there are still some matristic cultures around. But anyway, this is one location or dimension. It doesn't mean, to me, anyway, that the species members that win the game of evolution are actual winners, for all we know they may be losers, in a spiritual sense. It may be that when circumstances get too brutal more evolved souls opt out via death and go somewhere else.



Skilpadde
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,019

08 May 2010, 3:38 am

alana wrote:
I think these genetic mutations probably fascinate the tribe as long as they aren't disabling (and maybe even if they are) and are sometimes considered desirable just out of uniqueness.

Actually, I read somewhere that there was an Indian tribe who worshipped a cross-eyed deity, and as a result of their view on beauty, they hung a string down the foreheads of their kids in an attempt to make them cross-eyed as they'd watch the string. Don't ask me which tribe, I can't remember.

Quote:
I would rather think of aspergers as being a different way of being rather than a defective way of being. Because NTs differ from me in ways that I am not all that impressed by.

It is. And we're sure not inferior to NTs.

Quote:
I have spiritual beliefs that are in contradiction to the way that some people interpret evolution and natural selection

?


_________________
BOLTZ 17/3 2012 - 12/11 2020
Beautiful, sweet, gentle, playful, loyal
simply the best and one of a kind
love you and miss you, dear boy

Stop the wolf kills! https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeact ... 3091429765


wblastyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 533
Location: UK

08 May 2010, 9:46 am

Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy. There's no such thing as "less evolved". Neanderthals were just a different species of human, they weren't lesser. Perhaps they didn't really die out, maybe they became assimilated into homo sapiens?



wendigopsychosis
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 11 Apr 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 471
Location: United States

08 May 2010, 11:35 am

wblastyn wrote:
Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy. There's no such thing as "less evolved". Neanderthals were just a different species of human, they weren't lesser. Perhaps they didn't really die out, maybe they became assimilated into homo sapiens?


QFT. I hate when people talk about things being "less evolved."
If anything, viruses are just as evolved as we are, and in a pretty genius way! They've become more efficient over time, not by adding on new complicated structures, but by shedding organelles until they're just RNA in a protein shell. They don't need a body, they use a host cell to replicate themselves and survive.
(I love viruses...sorry...)

Skilpadde wrote:
Quote:
I would rather think of aspergers as being a different way of being rather than a defective way of being. Because NTs differ from me in ways that I am not all that impressed by.

It is. And we're sure not inferior to NTs.


Also second-ing this. We're not defective, we just work in slightly different ways. If the majority of people were ASD and NTs were the minority, they would be the ones having a hard time. Because NTs control and design society to fit their needs, we are the odd ones out.


_________________
:heart: I'm an author and public speaker on autism, gender, and sexuality :heart:
:heart: Read my articles @ http://kirstenlindsmith.wordpress.com :heart:
:heart: Follow updates @ https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kirsten- ... 9135232493 :heart:


Poke
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 605

08 May 2010, 1:43 pm

The "Neanderthal theory" is obviously ludicrous. "Neanderthal genetics" could possibly be the source of some neural dysfunction, but it is certainly not the primary or sole source of neural dysfunction.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

08 May 2010, 2:23 pm

wblastyn wrote:
Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy. There's no such thing as "less evolved". Neanderthals were just a different species of human, they weren't lesser. Perhaps they didn't really die out, maybe they became assimilated into homo sapiens?

I am not claiming that "less evolved" exists other than conceptually. Why did you think I took the time to type in quotation marks around the phrase if not to imply that the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase is dubious in reality?

The fact remains that we all must deal with the wider public perception of AS and unless there is some good reason (aka substantive evidences supporting the proposition) to construe that AS is caused by left over Neanderthalic DNA, then I would rather not put this idea into the minds of the wider public.

alana wrote:
I have spiritual beliefs that are in contradiction to the way that some people interpret evolution and natural selection (this is in response to the 'post about 'atavisistic' traits). So it doesn't matter to me about atavistic traits or that label because those people who are doing the labeling are clearly morons.

Does being morons make their eugenic activities any less catastrophic to the targets? My understanding is that morons or not, when it comes to eugenics, human beings are more than capable of "getting their game on". Just ask anyone with Down's Syndrome, although finding such a person is becomming increasingly harder as many of the "morons" choose to not let them be born.



flyingkittycat
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 134

08 May 2010, 2:35 pm

pandd wrote:
wblastyn wrote:
Evolution is a branching tree, not a hierarchy. There's no such thing as "less evolved". Neanderthals were just a different species of human, they weren't lesser. Perhaps they didn't really die out, maybe they became assimilated into homo sapiens?

I am not claiming that "less evolved" exists other than conceptually. Why did you think I took the time to type in quotation marks around the phrase if not to imply that the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase is dubious in reality?

The fact remains that we all must deal with the wider public perception of AS and unless there is some good reason (aka substantive evidences supporting the proposition) to construe that AS is caused by left over Neanderthalic DNA, then I would rather not put this idea into the minds of the wider public.

alana wrote:
I have spiritual beliefs that are in contradiction to the way that some people interpret evolution and natural selection (this is in response to the 'post about 'atavisistic' traits). So it doesn't matter to me about atavistic traits or that label because those people who are doing the labeling are clearly morons.

Does being morons make their eugenic activities any less catastrophic to the targets? My understanding is that morons or not, when it comes to eugenics, human beings are more than capable of "getting their game on". Just ask anyone with Down's Syndrome, although finding such a person is becomming increasingly harder as many of the "morons" choose to not let them be born.


Couldn't have said it better.

I don't buy the theory that we're neanderthals. Just more garbage.



alana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,015

08 May 2010, 8:20 pm

Quote:
Does being morons make their eugenic activities any less catastrophic to the targets? My understanding is that morons or not, when it comes to eugenics, human beings are more than capable of "getting their game on". Just ask anyone with Down's Syndrome, although finding such a person is becomming increasingly harder as many of the "morons" choose to not let them be born.


well, I don't have to, I'm gay, if they find the 'gay gene' you can bet gays/trans, etc will be on the list as well. For *this* time and *this* place. I'm not sure that is preventable but the energy will be somewhere in the universe if not here, possibly somewhere better.


also downs is on the upswing probably due to delayed parenting according to this article http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_Parentin ... id=9216796



Ofaelan
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 34
Location: Eastern USA

08 May 2010, 10:35 pm

Quote:
The Neanderthal theory is positing that traits currently deemed undesirable by most people, are an atavistic "throw back" to what is currently very much widely thought of as a "less evolved" and worse "unfit", "redundant", "failed to make the grade" life form. The average person hearing that is going to think AS is not just a difference, but a disorder resulting from having defunct DNA from a less evolved, less human species. Furthermore, it's difficult to see precisely how such a conclusion would be wrong if incidents of Autism are simply freak occurences of Neanderthalism.


Only if one considers post-Neanderthal developments to be "progress"! Most First- and Second-World people today do, of course, but sometimes I wonder.... :wink:



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

09 May 2010, 12:01 pm

One parent has dark brown eyes, the other has light blue eyes. One possible combination in the offspring might be hazel eyes with a blue tint. The blue allele is attempting to express itself but get's somewhat squashed by the dark brown allele. Same thing happens if you take light blue paint and mix it with just a little dark brown. It doesn't take much of the brown to change the blue to dark brown. Sometimes, both genes appear to show dominance even if one is blue and one isn't, thus, resulting in hazel. We don't know for sure what makes a gene dominant or reccessive. Blue eyes might be capable of dominancy in some circumstances. There's still plenty about genetics science hasn't figured out.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

09 May 2010, 2:15 pm

Ofaelan wrote:
Only if one considers post-Neanderthal developments to be "progress"! Most First- and Second-World people today do, of course, but sometimes I wonder.... :wink:

I think you will find that the average person on the street does indeed believe that post Neanderthalic developments constitute very significant progress.



pandd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,430

09 May 2010, 2:26 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
One parent has dark brown eyes, the other has light blue eyes. One possible combination in the offspring might be hazel eyes with a blue tint. The blue allele is attempting to express itself but get's somewhat squashed by the dark brown allele. Same thing happens if you take light blue paint and mix it with just a little dark brown. It doesn't take much of the brown to change the blue to dark brown. Sometimes, both genes appear to show dominance even if one is blue and one isn't, thus, resulting in hazel. We don't know for sure what makes a gene dominant or reccessive. Blue eyes might be capable of dominancy in some circumstances. There's still plenty about genetics science hasn't figured out.

If someone has hazel eyes, then it is construed that they do not have blue eyes for the purposes of the proposed inheritence model for blue eyes.

We actually do know at least one reason an allele may act recessively in some trait, in respect of another allele is because the effect of one allele can "mask" the observable effects of another. In the ABO blood group for instance, the effects of O are "masked" by the effects of either A or B and hence it is construed as recessive to both A and B which are co-dominant to each other (if A and B co-occur they are both observably expressed).

I recognize that there is uncertainty and are exceptions which is why I took the trouble to qualify statements with words such as "proposed", "considered" "in theory" etc.



Beebron
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 9 May 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 1

09 May 2010, 11:43 pm

Ok, So as of the past week it has now been proved that people outside of Africa have 1-4% Neanderthal DNA. There is still more work to be done on this research and they need a bigger sample group but it is certainly very interesting and I'm sure more research will be done.

Re: Blue eyes - as far as I remember blue eyes originate from a genetic mutation many years back and is believed to have originated from one common ancestor(maybe blue eyes weren't so recessive then?). This was somewhere in Eastern Europe and may have been more recent than the Neanderthals. The fact that blue eyes have managed to survive and spread so far is put down to their uniqueness way back when they were less common therefore more attractive. Anyway anyone interested can research this . Here's a start:

I can't post a link so search under 'Genetic mutation makes those brown eyes blue' and 'Geneticists Uncover the Origin of Blue Eyes'