From: BIll Roh (billroh@churchofvirus.com)
Date: Tue Jan 15 2002 - 09:30:42 MST
Great post Hermit - Thanks for all the work you put into it
best to you
Bill
L' Ermit wrote:
> [Bill 2] I'll mention some more of the specifics I remember just to clear
> some things up:
>
> [Bill 2] Yes, I thought I made it clear that it was the lack of sense of
> smell in the first sentence.
>
> [Hermit 2] I was only commenting on the bit about it being due to "Women
> have learned over the millennia to hide their cycle from the males." and was
> replying that while I don't know that it has remained constant it definitely
> is currently at the same level as our Chimp cousins. Sorry for the
> confusion.
>
> [Bill 2] 1> It is also the fact that to get a really good wiff - your head
> would need to be located at ass height. Obviously aside from the poor smell,
> the nose is poorly loacted, in most cases, for a really good wiff.
>
> [Hermit 2] Excellent point. I would note that with some women it is still
> possible to "taste" (metallic) or "feel" (stickier) ovulation due to changes
> in the mucous - but it should be noted that gynecologists refer to women who
> rely on this method to avoid conception "mothers".
>
> [Bill 2] 2> At the time when people were developing into people, we seldom
> lived that long (40 years)
>
> [Hermit 2] Agreed. At 70k in Georgia (current UniTblisi research recently
> reported in "Science" (perhaps in October or November 2001) for all the
> following), it seems that we lived an average of around 27 years (evidence
> of ear drums and tooth enamel). We do not know when oestrous began at that
> time, as this is not a constant. For example, the age in the Western world
> has declined by around 3 months per decade since the 1830s. This may be
> related to nutrition, in which case we have a very elegant population
> control mechanism, with a very rapid control cycle. But I cited the numbers
> because they are current, and which I came across recently.
>
> [Bill 2] - we were lucky to make it to puberty.
>
> [Hermit 2] While there were a lot of younger women who died (probably from
> complications with childbirth), making the average lifespan of the examined
> females 22 years, most men surviving their first year (where genetic
> evidence is spotty (no teeth - which is where we find sufficient active DNA
> for grouping) also made it past puberty. In other words, while the neonate
> morbidity is unknown, child morbidity appears to have been similar to that
> in most modern primitive societies.
>
> [Bill 2] If you lived to 30 you were an old man.
>
> [Hermit 2] Exactly correct. With few or no teeth. If female you were a
> barren disease ridden toothless hag. So much for "glorious primitivism."
>
> [Bill 2] So instead of 27 or 28 years of reproductive potential, it was
> only a few years, maybe 10 that you were able to reproduce.
>
> [Hermit 2] Due to the question of when oestrous began you may well be
> correct. But they seemed to reproduce a lot - and genetics show that they
> were highly polyamorous. Most men fathered 7 children, and most women had 3,
> which survived until old enough to develop teeth (which implies the same
> ratio for neonate mortalities) - and again points to a high maternal death
> rate - or possibly lower fertility than projected - bearing in mind that we
> measure fertility based on mitochondrial RNA.
>
> [Bill 2] 3> Even if 20 out of 100 got pregnant - at the time we were
> developing that would have been a catastrophic % of reproducing women. I
> would think anyway. Infant mortality at the time had to be phenominal.
>
> [Hermit 2] The rate I quoted is for monogamous couples. Where the woman
> sleeps with a different guy every night, the average fertility would improve
> dramatically. Firstly simply because the chance of fertilization are much
> higher if sex occurs close to the time of ovulation. Secondly because of the
> higher levels of sperm produced under these circumstances. Thirdly because
> it addresses two of the three types of infertility:
>
> Monogamous Polygamous Polyandry
> Polyamorous
> Male infertility (or low fertility) X X
> Female infertility X X
> Couple infertility X
>
> [Hermit 2] Naturally, Polyamorous relationships suffer from none of the
> above disadvantages - and appear to have been the most common relationships
> right up to 14,500-6,500 BCE (period of massive climatic change and
> distribution change).
>
> [Hermit 2] In any case, at this rate assuming we start with 10,000 breeding
> mothers (correct to within an order of magnitude) at the time of the 70k
> (+/- 5k catastrophe) and that 1/3 of these are active mothers, that 1/5 of
> the active mothers give birth every year, that 1/30 become new eligable
> mothers and 1/22 die. (Note I am only tracking mothers and I am using the
> breeding rate for modern monogamous couples. The reality would have been
> better, which will allow more than account for the infant deaths not tracked
> here due to lack of data.)
>
> [Hermit 2] At this rate, the population will double every 33 years or so.
>
> Year Mothers Births Deaths Population
> 0 3,333 667 455 10,000
> 1 3,404 681 464 10,212
> 2 3,476 695 474 10,429
> 3 3,550 710 484 10,650
> 4 3,625 725 494 10,876
> 5 3,702 740 505 11,107
> 6 3,781 756 516 11,342
> 7 3,861 772 526 11,583
> 8 3,943 789 538 11,828
> 9 4,026 805 549 12,079
> 10 4,112 822 561 12,336
> 11 4,199 840 573 12,597
> 12 4,288 858 585 12,864
> 13 4,379 876 597 13,137
> 14 4,472 894 610 13,416
> 15 4,567 913 623 13,701
> 16 4,664 933 636 13,991
> 17 4,763 953 649 14,288
> 18 4,864 973 663 14,591
> 19 4,967 993 677 14,901
> 20 5,072 1,014 692 15,217
> 21 5,180 1,036 706 15,539
> 22 5,290 1,058 721 15,869
> 23 5,402 1,080 737 16,206
> 24 5,516 1,103 752 16,549
> 25 5,633 1,127 768 16,900
> 26 5,753 1,151 784 17,259
> 27 5,875 1,175 801 17,625
> 28 6,000 1,200 818 17,999
> 29 6,127 1,225 835 18,381
> 30 6,257 1,251 853 18,771
> 31 6,390 1,278 871 19,169
> 32 6,525 1,305 890 19,575
> 33 6,664 1,333 909 19,991
> 34 6,805 1,361 928 20,415
>
> Using this model, which anticipates a uniform environment without
> constraints, and ignores epidemiology, the population will hit 100,000
> within 110 years, 1 million in 220 years, 10 million within 330 years and
> 100 million by 440 years. This is a great deal faster than we managed to
> breed, as it seems that we took almost 5000 years to reach the 10 million
> mark, so far from a disaster, these numbers are optimistic. Because of
> compounding effects, which results in geometric growth, actuarial tables are
> very sensitive to miniscule changes and I would hypothesize that the
> difference is caused by variations in the "indeterminate" areas, i.e. infant
> morbidity, resource constraints, and the unknown age of oestrous.
>
> [Bill 2] 4>I am not positing this as the answer, but a possible one of many
> aspects that drove the bus to monogamy.
>
> [Hermit 2] As reflected above, and in the data posted by Blunderov there are
> very few drivers to monogamy - and achieving high breeding rates is not one
> of them. I explore more in my reply to Blunderov below.
> [Blunderov]
> Ok, so if polygyny is so great then why do some end up being monogamous?
> It's certainly not very common:
> Birds- 90% monogamous.
> Mammals- under 5% monogamous
> Primates- 37/200=~18% monogamous.
> (Traditional human societies are about 20% monogamous.)
>
> [Hermit 2] Worth mentioning that in humans and apes, genetic testing proves
> that supposed monogamy and "cheating" go together.
> ===
> [Blunderov] I recalled L'Ermit's post of the other day....
>
> "[Hermit -1] Until we became civilized, we lived in a wide variety of
> exactly such "family packs" (evidence of burial sites and genetics) even
> though we don't know exactly how they were arranged....a reasonably large
> population (500 plus) is required to allow line shifts when a negative
> hereditable mutation occurs (1 per 2,500 years in a healthy population. 1
> per 3 years where the gene line starts out as a sea of recessives - as is
> the current case with humans and some endangered species)."
>
> [Blunderov] PS I don't understand the genetics. Why is (the human gene pool)
> "a sea of recessives - as is the current case with humans and some
> endangered species)."? Is this bad?
>
> [Hermit 2] Negative recessives are extremely bad for the gene line, because
> most genetic defects that do not kill the zygote can only be transmitted by
> a recessive gene provided by only one parent. When inherited from both, it
> is frequently fatal. Or it used to be. One trouble we have is that we don't
> cull humans, and where once negative recessives would tend to be self
> damping (e.g. cardiac defects are linked to many congenital defects e.g.
> porphyria, hemophilia, spinal biphidia etc.) and this tended to act as a
> filter to reduce transmission by removing the reinforcing crossings (i.e.
> when the recessive was received from both parents the zygote or neonate
> died), we now often keep these genetic failures alive, and frequently assist
> them to breed. In these circumstances each reinforced recessive carrier
> assisted to live and reproduce will pass that recessive on to *all* their
> children, meaning that this lifesaving process is causing rapid
> deterioration in our gene line. Another cause is the ever increasing age of
> mothers and fathers, resulting in an ever increasing probability of
> inheritable harmful mutations. As explained above, everyone in the entire
> population is a carrier for some harmful recessives and it is purely luck as
> to whether they reinforce - and create one of the 40% (up from 20% in the
> 1950s) of all neonates who express negative congenital factors - or if you
> do not have any matching recessives and simply pass the recessives on to
> your children so that they can participate in the same lottery when they
> start to breed. But as the number of people with negative recessives
> continues to increase at ever escalating rates, we greatly increase the odds
> of a recessive being matched at every crossing. As we are unlikely to start
> culling humans any time soon, we should be using genetic engineering to
> identify and where possible remove such negative recessives or refrain from
> breeding when they would be reinforced or we may well end up being unable to
> breed except with medical assistance. Not a good idea given the demonstrated
> fragility of individual species.
>
> [Hermit 2] In the history of man we have frequently almost become "just
> another" extinct species. The two most recent population catastrophes show
> this very clearly. At around 140 kyears BCE (+/- 10 kyears) we dropped to a
> population of about 2,000 from one of several millions. Due to subsequent
> line extinctions, we can all trace our ancestry back to 10 male and 18
> female protohumans out of that group [Dr Douglas Wallace et al, Emory
> University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Reported in Science, June 2000].
> Many of those line extinctions took place during the second population
> catastrophe at about 70 kyears BCE (+/- 5 kyears) when we dropped to a
> population of no more than 100,000 and possibly as few as 1,000 humans
> dispersed around the world. In addition to catastrophic line extinctions,
> the number of Y chromosomes has a tendency to diminish, a consequence of the
> fact that in each generation some men will have no children, or only
> daughters, even if the population stays the same size or increases. This,
> our common ancestry and the occasions when our numbers have been reduced
> means that all descendents of these surviving lines have inherited the same
> recessive negative genes from their ancestors, and anytime that a cross
> results in phenotype expression due to recessive genes being reinforced, a
> genetic flaw, some serious, many less so, becomes apparent. But those born
> with reinforced negative recessives which survive to breed pass them on to
> all of their children and this becomes a legacy for what were once more
> esoteric genetic problems (gene-splits, swaps, drops and repeats) but are
> becoming more common. These genetic problems are the reason why naturalists
> become agitated when a population drops towards 500 individuals which is
> where, statistically, the probability becomes unity that negative recessive
> reinforcement will eventually result in the extinction of that species (i.e.
> all the members of that species will end up with the same negative
> recessives and thus will be unable to breed successfully even if an
> apparently successful "rescue" is accomplished).
>
> [Hermit 2] Monogamy and in-line marriages (without culling) are a guaranteed
> way to amplify this effect. Which is why, unless we elect to rely on genetic
> engineering or adopt stringent culling (which could be implemented as
> breeding control programs (eugenics)) we will have to abandon both of these
> practices - or decide to become extinct. Of course, the religious will claim
> to the end that their gods will rescue us from the consequences of our
> idiocy, but I estimate that outcome as having such a low probability as to
> be negligible and in any case would have to be a discontinuity, so have not
> factored it into the models.
>
> [Hermit 2] Any species that defies evolution is a species on the path to
> extinction. And currently, humans are doing far to good a job of nullifying
> evolution. What I - and many other genetically aware people - advocate, is
> that we switch from moderated Darwinian evolution to deliberate Lamarckian
> evolution, using genetic engineering to minimize the obvious problems in our
> gene lines, and eventually begin to assist positive expression (e.g. we
> already know that IQ is encoded on 3 chromosomes and are narrowing down on
> the individual genes, so we should soon (5-15 years) be in a position to
> "select" for intelligence. Doing this will allow us to choose any social
> structuring we prefer, without concerning ourselves over the genetic
> implications.
>
> [Hermit 2] Apropos of something, this is a good reason to pick a partner
> from a different "line" to yourself and why the Jews and Indians (Asian),
> who both practice, almost exclusively, in-line marriage, have the largest
> number of identified genetic negative recessives. What this means in
> practice is that if you have a European heritage, you should ideally pick a
> partner from the AmerInds, Georgians, Africans or Asians to make healthy
> babies (avoid other Europeans, people of European descent, Indians and
> Semites). The same principles apply to other origins (including, perhaps
> especially, the Semites and Indians, as this implies that 25% of their
> children will probably be free of major negative recessives if they follow
> this path). The consequences of imagining that your gene line is "special"
> are ironic, but not even slightly amusing.
>
> Regards
>
> Hermit
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT