Information and Entropy

[bob b]

I think the same is true of Global Warming.

In other words, even though any harm from these trends (Global Warming and Genetic Entropy) will occur far in the future, I still think we ought to be tracking these trends in order to see if these developments are gradual or exponential.

The major disagreements regarding global warming (and perhaps Genetic Entropy) revolve around extrapolations to future levels and conditions.

Extrapolations are almost always less certain than current measurements.

 

[jobeth]

The major disagreements regarding global warming (and perhaps Genetic Entropy) revolve around extrapolations to future levels and conditions.

Extrapolations are almost always less certain than current measurements.

Yes, that's true. But we cannot even begin to make extrapolations without at least some bits of hard data, can we?

 

[jobeth]

I'm a little suspicious of global warming, but there is no question that it should be studied. Anything that can be studied should be studied. That is the only way that we can hope to find the truth.

Exactly.

That is why I would hope that someone would take an actual look at the historical record (including the remains of giant humans) to see if humans are indeed developing in the direction that we prefer to assume they are.

About Global warming: How can we know that Global warming is MERELY global?

 

[jobeth]

I do not see how this trend (that children are reading at an earlier age) is evidence for deterioration of the gene pool. Don't you consider literacy beneficial?

Welcome to the discussion.

Obviously I have completely failed at getting my premise across to you.

I am not talking about the harm or benefit of "literacy" among children. Rather, I am discussing the harm or benefit of "faster maturation rates" among human populations.

Are faster maturation rates a good thing or a bad thing for our species as a whole? This is what I am concerned about.

If you want to discuss literacy among children, perhaps you can find a thread on that topic by doing a "search".

 

[noguru]

Welcome to the discussion.

Obviously I have completely failed at getting my premise across to you.

I am not talking about the harm or benefit of "literacy" among children. Rather, I am discussing the harm or benefit of "faster maturation rates" among human populations.

Are faster maturation rates a good thing or a bad thing for our species as a whole? This is what I am concerned about.

If you want to discuss literacy among children, perhaps you can find a thread on that topic by doing a "search".

I was simply responding to a point you made in this thread. You seemed to be certain that earlier maturation is a type of genetic deterioration. I was pointing out that this may not necessarily be the case.

Is their conclusive evidence of a significant statistical figure that children are maturing faster? Are we certain of the factor(s) involved? IOW, is it genetic or environmental?

I do not wish to change the subject of this thread. I am just trying to get you to open the scope of your vision in regard to your claims.

 

[Stratnerd]

Are faster maturation rates a good thing or a bad thing for our species as a whole?

Genetics doesn't occur in a vacuum (as presented by some here) and benefit/cost can be completely dependent on the environmental context. Rapidly changing genomes may work in environments that are rapidly changing but not in stable environments. Also depends on where the mutations are occurring. So there's no easy answer.

 

[bob b]

Also depends on where the mutations are occurring. So there's no easy answer.

According to Neo-Darwinism the mutations are occuring randomly.

Are you suggesting that they aren't?

 

[noguru]

According to Neo-Darwinism the mutations are occuring randomly.

Are you suggesting that they aren't?

Mutations are still subjected to the influence and patterns of natural processes. Since natural processes have been shown to be guided by natural laws and principles it is not entirely random.

 

[Stratnerd]

According to Neo-Darwinism the mutations are occuring randomly.

According to Neo-Darwinists? I didn't know your views on evolution were relevant!

Are you suggesting that they aren't?

no.

 

[bob b]

Mutations are still subjected to the influence and patterns of natural processes. Since natural processes have been shown to be guided by natural laws and principles it is not entirely random.

Perhaps you should write a book to straighten out all those NeoDarwinists who would say you are "blowing smoke".

People like Ernst Mayr who Steven J. Gould labeled "The Darwin of the 20th Century".

I suggest you read his book, "What Evolution Is".

 

[aharvey]

Perhaps you should write a book to straighten out all those NeoDarwinists who would say you are "blowing smoke".

People like Ernst Mayr who Steven J. Gould labeled "The Darwin of the 20th Century".

I suggest you read his book, "What Evolution Is".

There's random and then there's random. Saying mutation is random can mean you can't predict when or where the next one will occur; you can't predict what it will be; you can't predict what its specific effect will be.

Of course, random processes can lead to non-random outcomes, depending on the conditions in which the processes operate. I use a simple maze in some of my experiments in which animals that choose randomly when confronted with two equally desirable maze arms still turn right 90% of the time! Or left, depending on how I configure the maze. And by systematically varying one maze parameter, I can gradually decrease the right turn bias until it disappears completely, and the animal's actual turn is as random as its choice!

 

[jobeth]

I was simply responding to a point you made in this thread. You seemed to be certain that earlier maturation is a type of genetic deterioration.

Yes. I believe that faster maturation rates is a type of genetic deterioration. Do you disagree?

I was pointing out that this may not necessarily be the case.

Oh really? Because I've heard that faster maturation rates are not a good thing. Have you been told otherwise?

Is their conclusive evidence of a significant statistical figure that children are maturing faster? Are we certain of the factor(s) involved? IOW, is it genetic or environmental?

Great questions. I, too, wish there was more research being done on the evolutionary changes occurring in human maturation rates and what could be the possible Selective Pressures involved.

 

[noguru]

Yes. I believe that faster maturation rates is a type of genetic deterioration. Do you disagree?

Why do you believe this? Have you analysed this hypothesis in the light of exhaustive research?

I believe that whether or not faster or slower mutation rates are beneficial or not is relative to the biome or environment in which an organism exists. Faster mutation rates are beneficial in a less stable biome/environment. There is much reaserch to support this notion. What research have you done to arrive at your belief?

Oh really? Because I've heard that faster maturation rates are not a good thing. Have you been told otherwise?

Well since you have offered no significant evidential statistics to support this, I am not convinced that mutation rates are increasing in the human genome. What is the scope of your pool of data? Your grandchildren and their friends? What historical time frame(s) are within the scope of your research?

You still have not even considered another factor involved. That factor being the environment. It is not clear whether the earlier maturation you have noted in modern children is due to faster variations in the genome. Or from a more readily available source of calories from one's diet.

At any rate, as to whether faster mutation rates are beneficial or deleterious refer to my previous response.

Great questions. I, too, wish there was more research being done on the evolutionary changes occurring in human maturation rates and what could be the possible Selective Pressures involved.

If you have no data or such little data from research, how can you be so certain that your beliefs are accurate? At best, I would say that your anecdotal evidence is inconclusive.

 

[jobeth]

Well since you have offered no significant evidential statistics to support this, I am not convinced that mutation rates are increasing in the human genome. What is the scope of your pool of data? Your grandchildren and their friends? What historical time frame(s) are within the scope of your research?

You still have not even considered another factor involved. That factor being the environment. It is not clear whether the earlier maturation you have noted in modern children is due to faster variations in the genome. Or from a more readily available source of calories from one's diet.

I agree. More research should be done. Otherwise, how can we know what is the actual cause of the earlier maturation rates we are noticing?

One good way to find out would be to examine the bodies of children who died a couple hundred years ago and had their ages at death accurately recorded - say from their tombstone or compared with bible records, which are both deemed accurate - and then compare their apparent maturation with modern children of the same age.

Of course, we would need to get permission from their families, I suppose, and that might prove to be an insurmountable problem comparable to getting approval for stem-cell research.

If you have no data or such little data from research, how can you be so certain that your beliefs are accurate? At best, I would say that your anecdotal evidence is inconclusive.

I agree.
But here is some more antedotal evidence:

The boys and girls of even 100 years ago were much more immature than a same-age child of today. When I was a kid, girls didn't begin menses until around age 12. 30 years before that it was 13. Now, they tell me that age 10 is considered "normal".

In the classic book “Little Women”, Louisa May Alcott tells a story about 16 year-old girls who were playing with dolls and no one at the time thought that was odd like they would today. How many 10 year-olds do you know that don't play with dolls anymore? In fact, don't most of them now wear make-up to school?

Boy's voices are dropping at much earlier ages than in times past. Beethoven had a boy's choir. Some of the "boys" were upwards of 17-18 years old and their voices had not yet changed. We would call a boy who's voice hadn't changed by the time he was 15 very slow maturing. But back then, it wasn't at all abnormal.

And the further back we look the more contrast we find. Hagar, Sarah’s handmaiden, carried her son Ishmael on her hip into the desert and walked away from him so she wouldn't hear him cry. (Gen 21:14, 17) How many women do you know today who can carry their 13+ year-old son around on their hips like a baby?

Abraham's wife, Sarah was pregnant for nearly a year, much longer than the 9 months pregnancies last today.

Did the bible get the facts wrong, or did children mature much more slowly back then than they do nowadays? This is a question I would like to see investigated and proved one way or the other. Wouldn't you?

 

[noguru]

I agree. More research should be done. Otherwise, how can we know what is the actual cause of the earlier maturation rates we are noticing?

One good way to find out would be to examine the bodies of children who died a couple hundred years ago and had their ages at death accurately recorded - say from their tombstone or compared with bible records, which are both deemed accurate - and then compare their apparent maturation with modern children of the same age.

Of course, we would need to get permission from their families, I suppose, and that might prove to be an insurmountable problem comparable to getting approval for stem-cell research.

I agree.
But here is some more antedotal evidence:

The boys and girls of even 100 years ago were much more immature than a same-age child of today. When I was a kid, girls didn't begin menses until around age 12. 30 years before that it was 13. Now, they tell me that age 10 is considered "normal".

In the classic book “Little Women”, Louisa May Alcott tells a story about 16 year-old girls who were playing with dolls and no one at the time thought that was odd like they would today. How many 10 year-olds do you know that don't play with dolls anymore? In fact, don't most of them now wear make-up to school?

Boy's voices are dropping at much earlier ages than in times past. Beethoven had a boy's choir. Some of the "boys" were upwards of 17-18 years old and their voices had not yet changed. We would call a boy who's voice hadn't changed by the time he was 15 very slow maturing. But back then, it wasn't at all abnormal.

And the further back we look the more contrast we find. Hagar, Sarah’s handmaiden, carried her son Ishmael on her hip into the desert and walked away from him so she wouldn't hear him cry. (Gen 21:14, 17) How many women do you know today who can carry their 13+ year-old son around on their hips like a baby?

Abraham's wife, Sarah was pregnant for nearly a year, much longer than the 9 months pregnancies last today.

Did the bible get the facts wrong, or did children mature much more slowly back then than they do nowadays? This is a question I would like to see investigated and proved one way or the other. Wouldn't you?

First off, I would stay away from using the word "proved" when discussing this subject. What is known is the current evidence and what that suggests. You say that "they" tell you the age of 10 is now the normal age that a girl enters menses. Who is "they"? And are "they" talking about the average age or the beginning of an age range that is considered normal? Has this age range really changed all that much? What is the statistical difference?

Also we need to identify the factors involved here. Is this statistical difference if there is one, due to genetics or environment? Does natural/sexual selection have any effect on the difference?

When I lived up north I use to go hiking and fishing at Mt Kitadin in Maine every year at the beginning of June. The brook trout fishing there is phenomenal. In a couple of ponds the brook trout got larger and there were many more. The other bodies of water were crystal clear, deep, and cold. In these cold, clear, deep bodies of water I never caught a trout that was over 8 inches. In fact 8 inches was small in the ponds that were about six feet deep in many areas. The 8 inch trout in the clear, deep waters were over 20 years old. In the other shallower ponds a 5 year old trout approached 16 inches. The reason for this was that in the shallower ponds aquatic vegetation grew more abundantly and they were the perfect depth for moose to feed in. The moose in turn would pull up the aquatic soil releasing larva and insects from the soil. This gave the trout in those ponds more food. Do you think that maturity levels of trout are effected by their diet?

 

[bob b]

Do you think that maturity levels of trout are effected by their diet?

Quite possibly.

The early maturation of children could as well be due to the hormones being added to the food chain.

 

[jobeth]

Has this age range really changed all that much? What is the statistical difference?

Also we need to identify the factors involved here. Is this statistical difference if there is one, due to genetics or environment? Does natural/sexual selection have any effect on the difference?

I agree. These are just the kinds of things I would like to see being studied.

When I lived up north I use to go hiking and fishing at Mt Kitadin in Maine every year at the beginning of June. The brook trout fishing there is phenomenal. In a couple of ponds the brook trout got larger and there were many more. The other bodies of water were crystal clear, deep, and cold. In these cold, clear, deep bodies of water I never caught a trout that was over 8 inches. In fact 8 inches was small in the ponds that were about six feet deep in many areas. The 8 inch trout in the clear, deep waters were over 20 years old. In the other shallower ponds a 5 year old trout approached 16 inches. The reason for this was that in the shallower ponds aquatic vegetation grew more abundantly and they were the perfect depth for moose to feed in. The moose in turn would pull up the aquatic soil releasing larva and insects from the soil. This gave the trout in those ponds more food. Do you think that maturity levels of trout are effected by their diet?

See now that is a good question to ask. Is there a direct correlation between different growth rates among trout compared with their relative maturation (reproductive ages or longevity) rates? And can we extrapolate your findings with the trout in Maine to predict the maturation rates of children in say, Mogadishu or Maryland? I don't think so.
bob b

The early maturation of children could as well be due to the hormones being added to the food chain.

Well, we need to know what's causing it, that's for sure. Another suspicion is that it is being caused by flouride in drinking water. But Blind Speculation is so-o-o 18th century.

Are you doing any independent reseach on this subject, like I have?

If the medical textbooks are still saying that average age of menarche is 12.7 years give or take 2 years (11-13), same as they did 50 years ago, and yet most girls in the 21st century experience menarche at age 9 or 10, then the textbooks are clearly wrong and more study is certainly called for by this glaring and embarrassing discrepancy.

 

[bob b]

If the medical textbooks are still saying that average age of menarche is 12.7 years give or take 2 years (11-13), same as they did 50 years ago, and yet most girls in the 21st century experience menarche at age 9 or 10, then the textbooks are clearly wrong and more study is certainly called for by this glaring and embarrassing discrepancy.

This brings up an interesting question in my mind: where was the sampling done 50 years ago (in what parts of the globe) and where was it done recently?

Sounds like a classic case from the book How To Lie With Statistics to me (actually it doesn't have to be a deliberate lie, just a misunderstanding about the applicabity of particular data sets).

 

[Johnny]

If the medical textbooks are still saying that average age of menarche is 12.7 years give or take 2 years (11-13), same as they did 50 years ago, and yet most girls in the 21st century experience menarche at age 9 or 10, then the textbooks are clearly wrong and more study is certainly called for by this glaring and embarrassing discrepancy.

A study published 3 years ago in the journal Pediatrics found, "Less than 10% of US girls start to menstruate before 11 years, and 90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years. This age at menarche is not significantly different (0.34 years earlier) than that reported for US girls in 1973. Age at menarche for non-Hispanic black girls was significantly earlier than that of white girls at 10%, 25%, and 50% of those who had attained menarche, whereas Mexican American girls were only significantly earlier than the white girls at 25%.

Conclusion. Overall, US girls are not gaining reproductive potential earlier than in the past. The age at menarche of non-Hispanic black girls is significantly earlier than that of non-Hispanic white and Mexican American girls."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/1/110

 

[aharvey]

A study published 3 years ago in the journal Pediatrics found, "Less than 10% of US girls start to menstruate before 11 years, and 90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years. This age at menarche is not significantly different (0.34 years earlier) than that reported for US girls in 1973. Age at menarche for non-Hispanic black girls was significantly earlier than that of white girls at 10%, 25%, and 50% of those who had attained menarche, whereas Mexican American girls were only significantly earlier than the white girls at 25%.

Conclusion. Overall, US girls are not gaining reproductive potential earlier than in the past. The age at menarche of non-Hispanic black girls is significantly earlier than that of non-Hispanic white and Mexican American girls."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/111/1/110

Now, Johnny, you know the other kids won't want to play with you anymore if you keep doing this.