I don’t understand how you can relate health problems in pure bred dogs usually attributed to in-breeding, to a theory of degeneration of current humans. Mongrels (‘Mutts’ in US English?) have a reputation for being healthier, smarter, and longer-lived than most pure breds, and most of them come about due to random stray boy dogs impregnating random stray girl dogs.
I think it’s simply false that human reproduction now selects for the ‘tamest’ humans, whatever that means. Now, as always, human reproduction selects for those who are most able to reproduce.
Did Dawkins actually articulate an argument like the one you present?
Back to the Russian fox experiment, whcih demonstrates the speed with which domestication can happen, and the likelihood that a train of incidental effects would fllow in the wake of selection for tameness. It is entirely probable that cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, gees,e ducks and camels followed a course which was just as fast, and just as rich in unexpected side-effects. It also seems plausible that we ourselves evolved down a parallel road of domestication after the Agricultural Revolution, towards our own version of tameness and associated by-product traits.
In some cases, the story of our own domestication is clearly written in our genes. The classic example, meticulously documented by WIlliam Durham in his book Coevolution, is lactose tolerance…
[continued later on the page and then to 32]
...My generalization concerne dthe human species as a whole and, by implication, the wild Homo Sapiens fromn which we are all descended. It is as if I had said, ‘Wolves are big, fierce carnivores that hunt in packs and bay at the moon’, knowing full well that Pekineses and Yorkshire terriers belie it. The difference is that we have a seperate word, dog, for domestic wolf, but not for domestic human…
[continued pg 33]...
Is lactose tolerance just the tip of the iceberg? Are our genomes riddled with evidences of domestication, affecting not just our biochemistry but our minds? Like Belyaev’s domesticated foxes, and like the domesticated wolves that we call dogs, have we become tamer, more lovable, with the human equivalents of floppy ears, soppy faces and wagging tails? I leave you with that thought, and move hastily on.
-Dawkins, ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’
Cheers for that. I might just look it up when I have some time. Still skeptical but it seems more plausible after reading those quotes. The hypothesis of selection for lactose tolerance seems a good place to start.
I think it’s simply false that human reproduction now selects for the ‘tamest’ humans, whatever that means. Now, as always, human reproduction selects for those who are most able to reproduce.
It does not make sense to say that human reproduction does not select for the ‘tamest’ humans because it really selects for those most able to reproduce. Those are different levels of abstraction. The question is: are the ‘tamest’ humans the ones most able to reproduce, and therefore selected for by evolution?
Agreed. One of the interesting points in that Dawkin’s book is how sexual selection can result in the enhancement of traits that neither increase survivability or produce more offspring. He talks about ‘fashions’ spreading within a species, in his personal theory of how humans started walking upright.
Basically, the females or the males start selecting for a particular rare behavior as indicative of something desirable over their lessers, which leads to that male or female exhibiting that trait reproducing and the trait being reinforced for as long as it is in ‘fashion’. Several cases of the way that can run away are presented in the book; Testicle size in chimpanzees due to sperm competition and the incredible sexual dimorphism in elephant seals which has driven the male to up to 8 times the size of the female. (Only one male in any given group reproduces.)
There’s always a reason for any selection, but when you deal with creatures with any kind of mindfulness, sometimes the reasons stem from the minds rather than perfectly from the biology.
I don’t understand your point about levels of abstraction.
The question is: are the ‘tamest’ humans the ones most able to reproduce, and therefore selected for by evolution?
Are the most rockin’ humans the ones most able to reproduce? In the absence of any visible evidence, my answer to both questions is most likely not. Evidence would require a clear definition of tame (or rockin’). We can mostly agree on what a tame fox is but what is a tame human?
It seems to me that essentially random copulation, with some selection/treatment for serious genetic diseases is just fine for maintaining biological humans pretty much as-is. I don’t know enough about mathematical biology to articulate a quantitative argument for this, but I’d like to hear it, for or against.
I don’t understand your point about levels of abstraction.
Imagine if someone said “This shape is not a rectangle. It is a quadrilateral.” You would probably think, “Well, some quadrilaterals are rectangles, so the shape being a quadrilateral does not mean it is not a rectangle.” “Quadrilateral” represents a higher level of abstraction than “rectangle” in that it specifies the shape less. Generally, the fact that something is accurately described in a vague manner does not mean it cannot also be accurately described in a more precise manner.
That evolution selects for the most reproductively fit is tautological, it is practically the definition of “reproductively fit”. The reason this tautology is useful is that it gets us to ask the question: what more concrete properties must an organism have to be reproductively fit? Here the property of “tameness” has been proposed as such a property, and represents a lower level of abstraction. Though, not much lower, you correctly point out that “Evidence would require a clear definition of tame”.
In this case, tame might mean: “Able to co-exist with other males in your species”. Our concestor with chimpanzees probably wasn’t, but we had to adapt.
I don’t understand how you can relate health problems in pure bred dogs usually attributed to in-breeding, to a theory of degeneration of current humans. Mongrels (‘Mutts’ in US English?) have a reputation for being healthier, smarter, and longer-lived than most pure breds, and most of them come about due to random stray boy dogs impregnating random stray girl dogs.
I think it’s simply false that human reproduction now selects for the ‘tamest’ humans, whatever that means. Now, as always, human reproduction selects for those who are most able to reproduce.
Did Dawkins actually articulate an argument like the one you present?
Well, yes, on Pg. 31 of ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’,
Back to the Russian fox experiment, whcih demonstrates the speed with which domestication can happen, and the likelihood that a train of incidental effects would fllow in the wake of selection for tameness. It is entirely probable that cattle, pigs, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, gees,e ducks and camels followed a course which was just as fast, and just as rich in unexpected side-effects. It also seems plausible that we ourselves evolved down a parallel road of domestication after the Agricultural Revolution, towards our own version of tameness and associated by-product traits. In some cases, the story of our own domestication is clearly written in our genes. The classic example, meticulously documented by WIlliam Durham in his book Coevolution, is lactose tolerance… [continued later on the page and then to 32]
...My generalization concerne dthe human species as a whole and, by implication, the wild Homo Sapiens fromn which we are all descended. It is as if I had said, ‘Wolves are big, fierce carnivores that hunt in packs and bay at the moon’, knowing full well that Pekineses and Yorkshire terriers belie it. The difference is that we have a seperate word, dog, for domestic wolf, but not for domestic human… [continued pg 33]...
Is lactose tolerance just the tip of the iceberg? Are our genomes riddled with evidences of domestication, affecting not just our biochemistry but our minds? Like Belyaev’s domesticated foxes, and like the domesticated wolves that we call dogs, have we become tamer, more lovable, with the human equivalents of floppy ears, soppy faces and wagging tails? I leave you with that thought, and move hastily on. -Dawkins, ‘The Ancestor’s Tale’
For what its worth....
Cheers for that. I might just look it up when I have some time. Still skeptical but it seems more plausible after reading those quotes. The hypothesis of selection for lactose tolerance seems a good place to start.
It does not make sense to say that human reproduction does not select for the ‘tamest’ humans because it really selects for those most able to reproduce. Those are different levels of abstraction. The question is: are the ‘tamest’ humans the ones most able to reproduce, and therefore selected for by evolution?
Agreed. One of the interesting points in that Dawkin’s book is how sexual selection can result in the enhancement of traits that neither increase survivability or produce more offspring. He talks about ‘fashions’ spreading within a species, in his personal theory of how humans started walking upright.
Basically, the females or the males start selecting for a particular rare behavior as indicative of something desirable over their lessers, which leads to that male or female exhibiting that trait reproducing and the trait being reinforced for as long as it is in ‘fashion’. Several cases of the way that can run away are presented in the book; Testicle size in chimpanzees due to sperm competition and the incredible sexual dimorphism in elephant seals which has driven the male to up to 8 times the size of the female. (Only one male in any given group reproduces.)
There’s always a reason for any selection, but when you deal with creatures with any kind of mindfulness, sometimes the reasons stem from the minds rather than perfectly from the biology.
I don’t understand your point about levels of abstraction.
Are the most rockin’ humans the ones most able to reproduce? In the absence of any visible evidence, my answer to both questions is most likely not. Evidence would require a clear definition of tame (or rockin’). We can mostly agree on what a tame fox is but what is a tame human?
It seems to me that essentially random copulation, with some selection/treatment for serious genetic diseases is just fine for maintaining biological humans pretty much as-is. I don’t know enough about mathematical biology to articulate a quantitative argument for this, but I’d like to hear it, for or against.
Imagine if someone said “This shape is not a rectangle. It is a quadrilateral.” You would probably think, “Well, some quadrilaterals are rectangles, so the shape being a quadrilateral does not mean it is not a rectangle.” “Quadrilateral” represents a higher level of abstraction than “rectangle” in that it specifies the shape less. Generally, the fact that something is accurately described in a vague manner does not mean it cannot also be accurately described in a more precise manner.
That evolution selects for the most reproductively fit is tautological, it is practically the definition of “reproductively fit”. The reason this tautology is useful is that it gets us to ask the question: what more concrete properties must an organism have to be reproductively fit? Here the property of “tameness” has been proposed as such a property, and represents a lower level of abstraction. Though, not much lower, you correctly point out that “Evidence would require a clear definition of tame”.
In this case, tame might mean: “Able to co-exist with other males in your species”. Our concestor with chimpanzees probably wasn’t, but we had to adapt.