the full circle

Welcome to 'the full circle'. On this tour through our world, yours and ours, we shall explore various aspects that will take us a full circle. Initially and on close examination you will observe that it forms a web, a complex and erratic web; just like with a spider's web you will have to step back to see the full circle.You, the reader, are welcome to pose questions. These blogs/web-journal entries are Copyrighted by the creators of Ceirius.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

...Artificial Selection


In evolutionary and ecological literature you will understand the generally accepted and assumed philosophy that any change to the environment and organisms by humans is artificial. By this assumption we have to take that the domesticated animals of today are not natural, the conversion of natural lands into agricultural, industrial and urban land is not natural either, and extinction of species is not natural either. Well, academics who specialize in these subjects will be quite tempered in their commentary, but the lay people and activists usually understand only the extreme scenarios.

In common parlance 'artificial' refers to anything made by humans, lacking the spontaneity, and perhaps sometimes against straight forward logic.

There are two sides to the issue. Man is a conscious animal capable of choosing their immidiate actions and fates. The animal in the previous sentence suggests that any action by man is ecologically and evolutionarily legitimate. The conscious part of that statement suggests that man can sometimes choose against themselves or to compromise their own interests for the sake of their longer term survival (i.e. choose long term fitness gains over short term gains).

With our new understanding of selection on living organisms we have to ask what is wrong with converting natural lands (forests, lakes, grasslands, rivers) to benefit the ecology of humans or should we call that 'economy' of humans? Is damming rivers against the thesis of nature, is consuming exotic meats and their skins against nature, is overpopulating and overexploiting our resources against our nature? is conserving nature and its living and non-living resources against the thesis of nature? Is the spread of domesticated organisms and parasites and commensals by humans against the thesis of nature?

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Evolution is a farce, really it is!! -- is it??

ok we'll start with the assumption that god created all life on earth. none of us deny the existence of a superior being that has some great power and abilities that we pray to on a regular basis. Ok there are are some people that don't believe in the existence of a god at all (but believe me they have their reasons, usually valid, so they are not infidels). now some facts 1) do you share any resemblance to either of your biological parents and their parents?; 2) do you know that science has proven (since Mendel and Watson and Crick) the process of inheritance and the existence of DNA as the basis of inheritance?; do you know that you are not identical to either of your parents or sinlings (except if you are identical twins)? i.e. no two people (except twins and triplets etc...) are identical or clones (you are half of each parent and a quarter of any of your non-identical twin siblings)?; have you noticed that rich people may have more kids, or kids (even if few in number) but more successful; have you noticed that people who are very poor may never have kids and if they do those kids very rarely are successful?

well you have probably answered positively to all of the questions above.

1) we and any other living organism inherits characters from their/its parent (colour, intelligence, smell, etc...)

2) there is variation in every population of living organisms. If all individuals of a population were identical, then over time the bad mutations may accumulate and kill off the population (the other extreme is also possible and occurs)

3) every organism is trying to produce maximum numbers of viable offspring than every other individual that will in turn produce maximum numbers of viable offspring than every other individual.

With these three points we have now agreed that incestuous communities, and communities with very small populations or very skewed sex ratios will not be able to survive very long without bringing in foreign blood into the community. The same holds true for every living organism.

With these three points we should also understand - in that variation in the population some heritable characters may not allow their posessors to be as successful under today's environmental conditions, but may allow those individuals to be successful under different conditions.

Evolution:- (
n. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form; the process of developing gradually or progressive change usually adapting to the dynamics of and demands of the environment that the subject is in interaction with.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

morphological diversity

Have you seen a person and been able to identify them to a geographic region based on certain facial features? We are all guilty of this habit to varying extents and I don't mean identifying people by their colour, rather facial features, height and width proportions, hair etc.
Today I can still confidently look at a person and guess the various ethnicities they are made up of. There were times before transportation was easy and before social norms allowed us to mix freely that mixing of human populations was almost non-existent, except perhaps on the edges of those populations. With my experience I have been able to identify individual animals to their gepgraphic regions, and similarly I see the same cohesive characters in humans. In nature, like-animals of species tend to group and form reproductive communities. They tend not to reproduce with individuals of foreign populations because of isolation by distance and that individuals stay close to their resource base and group. The exceptions are when the distances are small or easily over come and or resources are limited and or group dynamics (sex ratio and demographics) are not favourable.

Thus, when a new immigrant enters a popoulation it does not enter the reproductive population immidiately unless it is better at aquiring resources (or already has resources), has physical, physiological and morphological attributes that are more valued in the local population. Of course in a population there exist individuals with varying preferences and thus may reproduce with the immigrant with little delay.

The point being that when you look at the world today the greatest emmigrations are from rural to urban, developing to developed countries, increasing the mixing of populations in the immigrant centers. Just in east Asia it may be fair to say that the Han Chinese have migrated to all the surrounding lands with diaspora across the pacific, and south toward Australia and to limited extents to south and central Asia and Europe and Africa. The migrations of the last 200 years are not to be discounted. With a third of all human in just two countries both of which have huge emigrations and diaspora it may only be a matter of another 100 years before we are all a mixed race.

The initial premise of the essay that today you can still confidently identify a person to a geographic region will soon diminish greatly before a new order of human morphology emerges.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

natural selection; is artifical selection artifical?

Evolution of the diversity of life forms on Earth by the process first explained by Charles Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace), Natural Selection, is based on the fundamental molecular codes of life i.e. DNA orRNA. In an organism's DNA/RNA are codes for various possible combinations and gradations of different traits. Asexually reproducing organisms are technically identical or clones varying only by random mutations. Sexually reproducing organisms usually provide one half the genomic material from each parent. The variation in sexual organisms also arises from random mutations. However, variation is maintained and actually increased (analogy- proactively compared to asexual forms) in sexual organisms not merely by random mutations but also by the various combinations in which we can inherit character traits from our parents. This variation gives sexual forms the advantage of assembling new combinations of inherited characters to suit different conditions in the environment (example different coloured people, and their hair colours). It also allows sexuals forms to adapt through successive generations to different or changing conditions in the environment if they have the character traits.

The goal of every individual being to maximize their net reproductive output in different conditions of environment and competition and predation results in the selection of those character traits from the population that aid in maximizing their net reproductive output for successive generations. This is natural selection.

When the selection works directly on character traits that affect the primary or secondary sexual characters, it is called sexual selection.

Ok so this essay repeats some earlier essay. and it does not discuss artifical selection yet. well read the next essay.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

The Law of Limiting Resources

An object lying in disuse in every possible habitat is obviously not a resource. But in every environment every individual and its group (population or species) uses the available resources to its maximum and to their optimum. And every unused object (read resource) imports users (Niche occupation) or is exported out of the system till the resource can support no more users or cannot be exported economically any further. Thus the Law of Limiting Resources. But within a community a resource is used by every individual of the population and by individuals of other populations and by indviduals and populations of other species!?! Leading us into a reason for the limit on the resource - Competition.

Friday, August 04, 2006

The Population

A population is a like group of individuals of a common or shared gene pool and including a reproducing set of individuals. Each individual in the population tries to maximize its own fitness, but also that of its grouping, i.e. the population, in order of priority. A population is usually distinguished from other other populations by marked physical-morphological, or physiological differences, or geography (where the distinction is surmountable, but perhaps at a lower probability based on the current gene pool and geography) - implying the occurrence of flow of and sharing of gene pool.

Stephen Hawking's question

Dr. Stephen Hawking apparently posed a question on Yahoo Answers that "How can the human race survive the next hundred years?" Its a very thoughtful and deep question with no single answer that may be right or wrong. In a way it comes back to the debate of Man apart from the environment or Man a part of the environment. One premise of this journal is to investigate such questions.