Comments on: Human Sub-Species?!

By: johnnyVonline.com » The Best of Johnny-v.blogspot.com

johnnyVonline.com » The Best of Johnny-v.blogspot.com — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:26:33 +0000

[...] Science Human Sub-Species?! [...]

By: Zoo Boy

Zoo Boy — Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:08:00 +0000

Ummm…I’m sorry I’m still lost wm d. Monogamy is seen on many branches of the evolutionary tree and so are family units. Are you talking about social evoultion vs. biological evolution? Because I can’t see any scientific basis for what you’re saying to have evolved genetically. And from a social standpoint, your comment seems counter-intuitive. Casual sex leads to less bonding between partners than children and a family would. And while I will agree that humans have a bit of an “extended” childhood, adults are defined in biology as being sexually mature. Meaning an individual reaches adulthood when they are capable of producing viable offspring. For most humans this is somewhere between the ages of 12 and 15.

By: Ms. Anonymous

Ms. Anonymous — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:00:00 +0000

This discussion reminds me of something. A while back, I read a book titled Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love by Helen E. Fisher. She talks about chemical happenings in the brain, sociology, and evolutionary benefits/explanations of why we feel attraction, and the different ways in which we experience attraction. It was a very interesting book. It was understandable, because she was aiming at a wide audience, and she throws in quotes of literary figures along the way. Worth taking a look at.

By: Wm D

Wm D — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:58:00 +0000

It is believed that no clear sign of female fertility, thus a reason for recreational sex, evolved to bond females and males together in an interdependant family unit. Keeping them together for long periods of time. Creating a more successful environment for the raising and nurturing of the of the young with their very long ‘childhoods’. Most species become adults quickly.

By: Zoo Boy

Zoo Boy — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:15:00 +0000

(In response to ms. anonymous)

Right…and who am I to judge…I mean I enjoy…ummm…nevermind

and wm d, I’m sorry but you lost me with your last comment.

By: Wm D

Wm D — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:15:00 +0000

Also that “Humans are one of the only species on the planet to use sex as a recreational activity” was not a decision made by our forebearers, but evolved due to its success over other reproductive solutions for our species.

By: Wm D

Wm D — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:10:00 +0000

Keep in mind that arranged marriages, or marriages in general, are not always indicative of who the father may be.

By: Ms. Anonymous

Ms. Anonymous — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:15:00 +0000

Hey, it may be a cold, hearless, scientific interpretation, but that way no one can say you are judging

By: Zoo Boy

Zoo Boy — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:40:00 +0000

Very true! I also think one could make the argument that many humans aren’t really “selective” at all when it comes to sexual encounters. The production of offspring may not be the goal of these encounters but it is an inevitable by-product. Humans are one of the only species on the planet to use sex as a recreational activity instead of the purely biological desire to spread one’s genes. How’s that for a cold, heartless, scientific interpretation?!:)

By: Ms. Anonymous

Ms. Anonymous — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:35:00 +0000

Science also can’t predict when societies in the developing world will finally let go of arragned-marriage practices. Let’s not forget that not all mating is “selected”.

By: Zoo Boy

Zoo Boy — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:03:00 +0000

Good point on the environmental pressures as that is what usually leads to a divergence into sub-species. I didn’t want to get too preachy with my original post but that is something I had thought of as well. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of sexual selection though. It has proven to be one of the most powerful catalysts of change in the animal kingdom. I just think that in human society there are a lot more factors in play than pure physical characteristics. Our “selection” is based far more on emotional factors than physical. And science can’t predict emotion.

By: Wm D

Wm D — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:36:00 +0000

In todays world we are already seeing a gene flux as population intermarry. But this is not a divergence into separate human lines or let us say subspecies, but into homogenization or mixing a of populations. I see nothing in the article that speaks to environmental pressures that would cause such a divergence. Even in his article he talks about traits becoming more uniform and yet diverging? Hmmmm. And while you say his hypothesis may be possible, I’m sure any serious scientic look would conclude the probability is so low as to be not possible.