"To begin with, it's unjust to include Ms Harris with the others since she was morally justified in her action."

Senor Terrazas had the same motive, no?

"We stopped kiling each other for unnatural reasons, not Darwinian ones."

Societies function better when the killing occurs in an organized fashion.

No

Both thought his or her mate had betrayed them sexually and went into a murderous rage, no?

No, one merely mated, the other married.

in the context of this article, what motivation do women have to kill ?

cjm:

Beauty, jealousy, vanity, and self-defense, of course. I would say fertility envy as well, but that also means penis envy would enter the discussion, and I doubt if the author would approve of that.

ratbert: the reasons you give are understanable, but they lie out side the bounds of the proposed theory (in the article):

"Evolutionary theory also explains why men kill so much more than women — 87% of killers worldwide are men. Women are the more valuable reproductive resource because of a fact of human reproductive biology: Women, not men, bear the burdens of the nine-month investment to produce a child. Competition is always fiercest among the sex that invests less."

i was just curious what might account for a woman who murders, as defined by the theory. as usual its a half-assed and self-contradicting piece of media fluff.

creeper:

Societies function better when the killing occurs in an organized fashion

Yes, and they function better when everyone mows their lawn and keeps a nice garden. Also when people dress before going out. Come to think of it, when they collect their garbage in bags rather than just throwing it everywhere.

Isn't it marvellous how many things natural selection led us to?

Wahey, look over there, natural selection doesn't explain why people dress up for dinner!

If valid it would.

In your desperate attempt to deny the theory of natural selection, you are as usual ignoring most of what it says.

The theory of evolution does not postulate that natural selection explains every last little thing in the universe; its validity is not reliant on having to explain why people dress up for dinner.

creeper:

Yes, but it has to in order to be valid. That you can't accept that speaks well of you, badly of the theory.

OJ:

No, it doesn't.

But, given your resistance to the mathematically obvious, there is no reason to suspect you will disabuse yourself of this breathtaking silliness, either.

Oh right, I keep forgetting, in your religion Man alone magically breaks free of the evolutionary forces that drive all other life in the Universe.

jeff,

how did life start ?

"in your religion Man alone magically breaks free of the evolutionary forces that drive all other life in the Universe"

Man is not free of this, but the effect of natural selection is lessened by large populations and lessened survival pressures.

But the game isn't over, Orrin. In a couple of hundred years, cockroaches or dolphins might well be the dominant species on this planet.

There is no reason why the theory of evolution should have to postulate that natural selection explains why people dress up for dinner in order to be valid.

creeper:

As we have been treated in the past to impassioned arguments from your tag team colleagues on how natural selection explains language development, automobile design and architecture, I'd be very interested in hearing you on why it doesn't explain dress fashion and codes. And on what does.

creper:

The beautiful thing is that the theory itself has to be a Darwinian construct that improves survivabilty--there are circles even withi the circle.

Peter:

What's your explanation?

Keeping in mind that Ford and GM are, at the moment, facing some very unwelcome selection pressures.

the effect of natural selection is lessened by large populations and lessened survival pressures.

Hilarious. And so we've arrived at the magic point where Natural Selection no longer works in humans...

You've shown this how and with what experiment?

cjm:

I dunno. And I'm also not sure how the question is relevant.

"And so we've arrived at the magic point where Natural Selection no longer works in humans..."

What makes you think natural selection no longer works in humans? The rate of change simply slows down when the population is larger and when survival pressure is lessened; it does not mean the process no longer works. As Jeff has elaborately demonstrated, you insisting that the process has stopped by restricting your point of view to an absurdly short timespan does not translate into there not being any change at all. If you look in the mirror in the morning, then look in the mirror the next morning, and can't perceive any difference, does that mean that your hair doesn't grow, or that you looked the same twenty years earlier and will look the same in twenty years time?

Lessened survival pressure making natural selection less effective derives from point 4 in the summary of the theory. When survival pressure is lessened, the variations reproduce in equal proportions.

The same for a large population - any variations are more likely, over successive generations, to revert to the mean.

"As we have been treated in the past to impassioned arguments from your tag team colleagues on how natural selection explains language development, automobile design and architecture, I'd be very interested in hearing you on why it doesn't explain dress fashion and codes. And on what does."

I don't know what exactly other people have argued on those points, but natural selection is specific to organisms that reproduce.

it would seem that darwinism would have to explain the creation of life as part of its overall theory, otherwise it is a theory built on magic.

cjm;

No, it's just one of a series of givens--Darwinism's unscientific nature is demonstrated by its being axiomatic.

creeper:

Could you do us a favor and quantify the current selection pressure and compare it that that a thousand years ago? That way we can see why Darwinism used to affect human behavior but doesn't anymore.

Jeff:

Now you think cars evolve?

How did selection pressure affect humans a thousand years ago?

You give up too?

Give up on what? Contrary to your previous bizarre "magic moment for the last 10,000 years" claim, you're now saying that human behavior was affected by Darwinism a thousand years ago. How?

I agree it wasn't.

So, Could you do us a favor and quantify the current selection pressure and compare it to that ten thousand years ago? That way we can see why Darwinism used to affect human behavior but doesn't anymore.

A surgeon who posts elswhere as 'Orac' informs me that a gene (apparently stimulated in Europe some centuries ago by an epidemic) confers a very considerable immunity to infection by the HIV virus.

Currently, the incidence of this mutation in Scandinavia is around 12-15%. Orac asks, is this mutation likely to spread in succeeding generations?

We won't be around to see, but we know the answer. Humans are subject to natural selection.

Did he say what species he considers people with that gene to be?

i read that around 20% of european caucasians (and there descendants) have this gene (although the article i read was that it was actually damage to an existing gene). i also seem to remember that both of your parents have to have to actually receive immunity from aids/hiv, giving maybe 4% of the population protection.

Dr. Orac, now there's a name to inspire comfort in a patient :)

Harry:

A poor test case, because the breeding population (non-IV drug using heterosexuals) isn't subject to much HIV selection pressure, and junkies and gays don't reproduce all that much to begin with.

Then it will be all the more impressive if the gene does in fact increase in frequency.

I notice (what I overlooked at first) that Orrin, who at least twice a week advocates dropping atomic bombs on crowded cities, says 'we stopped killing each other.'

What you mean 'we,' white man?

Harry:

What species are those who aren't susceptible?

Homo sapiens, of course.

creper:

Sic transit Darwinism

You wish.

87-13

If you want to play that game: 51% believe that human beings developed over millions of years from lesser forms of life.

Not sure if they all think that's because of nutrition.

Incidentally, what makes you think that homo sapiens acquiring immunities over successive generations in any way disproves either 'Darwinism' or the theory of evolution?

Nothing can disprove Darwinism. The faith is just fading.

"Could you do us a favor and quantify the current selection pressure and compare it that that a thousand years ago?"

You keep quoting Mayr, but not a single word of what the man said appears to have sunk in. Apart from the couple of sentences you insist on misinterpreting, that is.

[Editor's note: We'll take that as a, No.]

"Nothing can disprove Darwinism. The faith is just fading."

What does the word 'Darwinism' mean to you?

That speciation occurs by a process of Natural Selection.

Does it mean that the only thing natural selection results in is speciation? It can't result in anything else?

And do you see a difference between 'Natural Selection' and 'natural selection'?

No, we know it (natural selection) can result in the same things we achieve via breeding. That was Darwin's brilliant observation. The rest (Natural Selection) was reasonable speculation that's turned out to be false.

"[Editor's note: We'll take that as a, No.]"

You can easily just respond in a new comment. Although I do appreciate it when you actually properly identify changes that you make in my comments, which I am sorry to say is not always the case.

Can survival pressures be quantified, say, in numerical terms? Maybe. If there was a need to compare survival pressures in the present day, perhaps such a scale could be designed, but I'm not aware of it. Scientists explore along lines that they wish to see explored, and as far as I know, comparing survival pressures in numerical form has simply not been deemed to be either necessary or promising. If you can think of a reason why it should be researched, perhaps you can get some scientists interested.

Lessened survival pressures resulting in lesser rate of change due to natural selection stems quite simply from the logic of the theory of natural selection: if all offspring survive equally, then little or no change occurs over successive generations. If they don't survive equally (ie. higher survival pressure relating to a specific characteristic of the organism), then change will occur over successive generations.

from the logic of the theory of natural selection

Exquisite! Here endeth the lesson.