Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

worksinprogress.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#61

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

like_any_other wrote: post #53
rectang wrote: post #40

It's amazing that it only takes centuries. Under natural selection, species traits stay relatively stable for thousands or even millions of years. I suppose that means natural selection tends to have more of a pronounced effect when there has been a severe environmental change that wipes out a large fraction of the population and leaves behind only those with adaptive mutations. Otherwise, the adaptive mutation stays…

I'm just glad this only applies to plants, and possibly animals, and not humans.

The argument against eugenics is not "it doesn't work even in theory."

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#62

Post by cpard »

lukan wrote: post #35
cpard wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the sprouts trauma is the result of picking the wrong cooking method. I was so surprised when I tried baked sprouts for the first time (use a really host cast iron skilet for even better results) that I started to believe that every vegetable can be delicious as long as you bake it!

"I started to believe that every vegetable can be delicious as long as you bake it!" Baking is good, but I also came to another conclusion - vegetables that are disgusting if they are cooked to a slimy paste, can be delicious eaten raw in a salad!

Examples please!

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#63

Post by like_any_other »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #61
like_any_other wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just glad this only applies to plants, and possibly animals, and not humans.

The argument against eugenics is not "it doesn't work even in theory."

You think it maybe applies to more than just eugenics? Perhaps to the dogma that we are all the same?

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#64

Post by rectang »

like_any_other wrote: post #63
BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against eugenics is not "it doesn't work even in theory."

You think it maybe applies to more than just eugenics? Perhaps to the dogma that we are all the same?

In fact, punctuated equilibrium is quite compatible with what you describe as "the dogma that we are all the same".

Punctuated equilibrium theory was proposed in the early 1970s by Stephen Jay Gould, who also wrote The Mismeasure of Man, a critique of biological determinism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#65

Post by lukan »

cpard wrote: post #62
lukan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I started to believe that every vegetable can be delicious as long as you bake it!" Baking is good, but I also came to another conclusion - vegetables that are disgusting if they are cooked to a slimy paste, can be delicious eaten raw in a salad!

Examples please!

Broccoli!

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#66

Post by like_any_other »

rectang wrote: post #64
like_any_other wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think it maybe applies to more than just eugenics? Perhaps to the dogma that we are all the same?

In fact, punctuated equilibrium is quite compatible with what you describe as "the dogma that we are all the same". Punctuated equilibrium theory was proposed in the early 1970s by Stephen Jay Gould, who also wrote The Mismeasure of Man , a critique of biological determinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Yet punctuated equilibrium does not apply to cabbage, dog breeds, wolf varieties, and countless others. There are 37 subspecies of wolf, 10 of brown bear (yes, only brown bear. Other bears have their own subspecies each), and 47 red fox subspecies. Man alone is the great exception, unaffected by geographical separation and restricted gene flows.

> biological determinism

That term itself is a strawman - the argument is not that biology and genes fully determine behavior and life outcomes, merely that they affect it. As an aside, not only was Mismeasure of Man debunked (the skull measurements were not biased [1,2]), attacking craniometry in the era of genetics is like attacking alchemy. He should spend his time attacking PCA plots of the human genetic distribution [3]. Of course he does not, because he would prefer people remained ignorant of that.

It's sad that 166 years after On the Origin of Species, we still haven't accepted that we are not immune to natural selection.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man#Reassess...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html

[3] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Principal_compon...

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#67

Post by BigTTYGothGF »

like_any_other wrote: post #66
rectang wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, punctuated equilibrium is quite compatible with what you describe as "the dogma that we are all the same". Punctuated equilibrium theory was proposed in the early 1970s by Stephen Jay Gould, who also wrote The Mismeasure of Man , a critique of biological determinism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

Yet punctuated equilibrium does not apply to cabbage, dog breeds, wolf varieties, and countless others. There are 37 subspecies of wolf, 10 of brown bear (yes, only brown bear. Other bears have their own subspecies each), and 47 red fox subspecies. Man alone is the great exception, unaffected by geographical separation and restricted gene flows. > biological determinism That term itself is a strawman - the argument i…

> Of course he does not, because he would prefer people remained ignorant of that.

That's certainly one hypothesis, but here's an alternative one that I'd like you to consider: he's not doing that because he died in 2002. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould)

> Man alone is the great exception, unaffected by geographical separation and restricted gene flows

Extant bears have never invented the wheel, wolves spend more time eating horses than domesticating them, and despite what you might see on certain corners of the internet there has never been a vulpine Columbus. (To clarify, humans move around a whole lot more than most animals)

Re: Centuries of selective breeding turned wild cabbage into different vegetables

#68

Post by like_any_other »

BigTTYGothGF wrote: post #67
like_any_other wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet punctuated equilibrium does not apply to cabbage, dog breeds, wolf varieties, and countless others. There are 37 subspecies of wolf, 10 of brown bear (yes, only brown bear. Other bears have their own subspecies each), and 47 red fox subspecies. Man alone is the great exception, unaffected by geographical separation and restricted gene flows. > biological determinism That term itself is a strawman - the argument i…

> Of course he does not, because he would prefer people remained ignorant of that. That's certainly one hypothesis, but here's an alternative one that I'd like you to consider: he's not doing that because he died in 2002. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould ) > Man alone is the great exception, unaffected by geographical separation and restricted gene flows Extant bears have never invented the wheel, wo…

> he died in 2002

Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza measured genetic differences between human populations using the fixation index in 1994 [1]. He was not ignorant of genetics, he just chose to shift attention to craniometry instead. And even now that we have far better tools and knowledge, people choose to focus on outdated arguments instead, because they give the answers they want. E.g. by bringing up Gould when his work is no longer relevant.

> To clarify, humans move around a whole lot more than most animals

By what mechanism do you think the visible physiological distinctions between human populations arose? Clearly humans don't (or haven't up to very recently) moved around enough to even them out.

You think those are the only traits that haven't been evened out?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#Genetic_distanc...

Post reply on HN