Forearm artery reveals human evolution continues? • Hacker News Board

Re: Forearm artery reveals human evolution continues?

#91

Post by Retric » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 1:28 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #90

Retric wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal blood pressure increases steadily with age. https://www.idealbloodpressureinfo.com/blood-pressure-chart-... Target and maximum heart rates similarly decline from your teens. The point where these get called a precursor to heart disease is largely semantics. But they do impact heath before it’s noticeable as a problem.

You’re trying awful hard to save your point. Target heart rate declining and blood pressure rising with age in no way implies that most people who later die of heart disease are somehow less reproductively fit when they are younger.

You say that, but the connection seems likely which is my point. The indirect symptoms of heart disease such as loss of athleticism and cognitive function would be important.

Heredity is one of the stronger predictors of heart disease so it’s got a strong genetic component beyond diet and lifestyle. So, it’s really just a question of how early meaningful symptoms show up as the physical differences already exist during people’s reproduce years.

It seems like an obvious test if do differences in Forearm arteries have fewer heart attacks. And do they correlate with higher blood pressure in people’s 20’s to 30’x.

Re: Forearm artery reveals human evolution continues?

#92

Post by danieltillett » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 6:48 AM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #84

danieltillett wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same approach can be applied to tenure. Set a basic threshold that someone needs to meet, then run a lottery to chose who gets tenure. Would end an amazing amount of unproductive gaming of the system.

This would work if people are roughly equally good above that low bar. But there are vast differences. The current metrics aren't perfect but they do correlate with ability. And as I said, you can't randomize everything, like talk invitations or "followers", collaboration offers, research stay offers at prestigious places, media exposure etc.

Not very closely based on my personal experience. I am not sure that science needs more of the activities on your list.

Re: Forearm artery reveals human evolution continues?

#93

Post by learc83 » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 2:01 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #91

learc83 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re trying awful hard to save your point. Target heart rate declining and blood pressure rising with age in no way implies that most people who later die of heart disease are somehow less reproductively fit when they are younger.

You say that, but the connection seems likely which is my point. The indirect symptoms of heart disease such as loss of athleticism and cognitive function would be important. Heredity is one of the stronger predictors of heart disease so it’s got a strong genetic component beyond diet and lifestyle. So, it’s really just a question of how early meaningful symptoms show up as the physical differences already exist duri…

>You say that, but the connection seems likely which is my point. The indirect symptoms of heart disease such as loss of athleticism and cognitive function would be important.

Only if as you say the meaningful symptoms show up during common reproductive years.

So far I see no evidence that that is the case.

>Heredity is one of the stronger predictors of heart disease so it’s got a strong genetic component beyond diet and lifestyle.

Again there is no evidence that it is common that hereditary heart disease that generally affects people 50+ has meaningful symptoms during reproductive years.

And there is even less evidence that these symptoms are meaningful enough to impact fertility to such an extent that it creates significant short term evolutionary pressure.

You're taking 1 condition which is common in later life and saying: well maybe some people with that condition actually develop it earlier in life, and just maybe some people that develop it earlier have some externally significant symptoms, and maybe some of those people have specific symptoms that would make them less likely to reproduce all else being equal.

Each step of that funnel is a complete unknown, and each step diminishes the overall impact that genes that control the most common forms of hereditary heart disease have on reproductive fitness.

Re: Forearm artery reveals human evolution continues?

#94

Post by bonoboTP » Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 2:21 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #92

bonoboTP wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would work if people are roughly equally good above that low bar. But there are vast differences. The current metrics aren't perfect but they do correlate with ability. And as I said, you can't randomize everything, like talk invitations or "followers", collaboration offers, research stay offers at prestigious places, media exposure etc.

Not very closely based on my personal experience. I am not sure that science needs more of the activities on your list.

Ultimately, most people are driven by a striving for social status and prestige. This is very general and includes money, power, freedom, intellectual influence, access to interesting people to work with and discuss, being taken seriously by intelligent co-experts, being a valued and respected member of the community, whose insights people look out for etc.

This is taboo to say explicitly of course, one must say that it's all internal passion, but people, whether they admit it or not, will have to strive for these things. If they don't, they fall behind.

This goes way way deeper than grants. It's not even just human nature, but a fundamental property of life. The same is true in dating. You have to present yourself in the best possible way, and those who do have better success.

It's not enough that you and your ideas are good, you have to be able to convince people that you are worth investing in.

You can't forbid people to associate, to form cliques, to keep tabs on who is good and who isn't (and the same for departments and universities) etc, to invite each other to work together.

A grant that led to a sexy result will be considered money better spent, than something that leads to no presentable conclusions.

And beyond the gaming, there are genuine differences in how good a research vision some people have. Top, visionary people vs mediocre incrementalist copycats is a real distinction.