[MacDEF]

Quote:

MacDEF: very nice review. Thank you.

Review? What review? I thought we were talking about genetics

P.S. Thanks.

 

[kerykeion]

Ha, this thread has *evolved* to a severely off-topic subject.

 

[dgs]

Quote:

Originally posted by mbriant Survival is in fact the main catalyst for evolution.

Semantics, I suppose, but hey, why not...Genetic variations produced dynamically over time both in random fluctuations in DNA replication and in response to environmental stressors are the main catalysts for evolution in my understanding. Survival MAY BE the result of that variation, but it is equally possible that a variation is passed on not because it provides an advantage but because it doesn't provide a disadvantage. For example, men don't need nipples, but we got 'em. Why? Well, not because men having nipples confers a survival advantage. Rather, it's because women need 'em, and important functions are highly preserved over time. At any rate, survival isn't really a catalyst for evolution, but I know what you meant.

 

[SEK]

Tim D can distinguish between taste in music and lactose intolerance.

I think an emphasis on physiological differences between so-called "races" should be the last place where we seek explanations about consumer and aesthetic preferences. Rigorous scientific studies of "race" consistently show that race is an arbitrary, socially defined concept as it is applied to humans. Physiologically, there is much more variation within any nationality or population (even between pygmies and Swedes) than between any of those groups. (Still, that lousy political polemic, The Bell Curve, was a New York Times best seller in the late 20th century!)

The wide variation in "cultures" among people who look similar should instantly tell you that it's not about physiogamy (but we carry so much cultural baggage!). Group preferences and aesthtetics are about where you're raised, not how you were born. Even here in the U.S.A., everyone does not shop in the same stores, with the same array of products, and with the same amount of money in their pockets, or the same technical knowledge, interest, taste in music, etc...

We might as well proclaim the Head-Fi membership as a race, because of the unusual attention we collectively pay to the quality of our gear. More to the point, Team AKG could easily be established as a separate racial group from Team Grado or Team Sennheiser, because these groups "obviously" hear differently from eachother. We should also proclaim that those members who can claim membership to Team Sony and Team Sennheiser, for example, are "biracial" or, at least, bicultural.

The word "culture" is overused, and "race" useless to explain behavioral differences between groups.

This should be way off-topic, but I feel that I need to respond to the spurious racialist assumptions that underly too much of the discussions here about these inexpensive Labtec headphones.

Incidentally, Consumers Reports, in their recent review of speakers, for what it's worth (to me, not much), highly rates certain Technics and Pioneer speakers. From what mbryant conjectures (he does not make any assertion that comes remotely close to a theory), that could indicate a strong presence of East Asians at CU. It's time for some folks to leave their well-appointed stockades.

 

[dgs]

MacDEF: Review? Hmmm. this did start there, at some point...no?

kerykeion: Threads evolve? But where's the survival value in that?

Actually, I only meant to add my two cents because the idea that genetics can be used to justify differences in races (not species) is, in my opinion, misguided and dangerous. Hilter felt that Arians were better athletes than African Americans, and Jessie Owens promptly whomped that theory. It's just dangerous to fall back on genetics as an explanation for things. It tends to give us an excuse for not taking responsibility for how we raise our children, how we behave to others, and so on, and I guess I'm a little sensitive about these things these days (living in NYC and watching the twin towers fall from my livingroom window a few weeks ago). I would not be satisfied with the explanation that certain human races are more "warring" or "aggressive" as a justification for wiping out a race...

 

[dgs]

dropping out of this thread. have to eat. SEK: I liked your post.

 

[mbriant]

Actually, the average human lifespan of 70 - 80 years is a relatively new phenomena brought on by advances in medicine and technology. Until recent times, I believe it was less than half those numbers.

For the sake of political correctness and not wanting to be labelled a Nazi, I conceed that all humans throughout time are and always have been absolutely identical in every way. There is no difference at all between Pigmies, Swedes, Aztecs, Celts, Mongols, Zulus, Nepalese, or any of the world's races.

Only animals have been affected by evolution.

and MacDEF....nice review

 

[ai0tron]

What about sickle cell anemia?

Is it the result of mutation or evolution?

Sickle cell anemia is actually a benefit to MOST of the people who have it. It makes a person immune to the disease malaria. I am sure you all know about the ravages of malaria and why one might be interested in being immune to it. Could it be argued then that people with sickle cell anemia have evolved in a relatively short amount of time to become immune to malaria? If so then perhaps this whole hearing thing isn't so far fetched after all.

 

[Tim D]

It is both an instance of mutation and micro-evolution I think. This trait which has an advantage against malaria and diseases of the sort in one copy, is totally useless in areas without malaria and when you have two copies of the trait it is harmful. Notice however that malaria and sickle cell anemia is an instance of life and death, whereas liking or not liking the Labtec Elite-840 is an instance of being flamed or not LOL.

Just remember that evolution and darwinism has got to be one of the most misrepresented theories ever. I think Darwin would roll-over in his grave multiple times knowing his name is stamped on either a big fish or little fish on many cars LOL.

Believe me after reading his Origin of Species book I wish I read something really exciting...but everything was pretty conservative, and there was nothing I remembered that was so interesting that wasn't already taught to me. Ok obviously it wasn't conservative at the time it was written and was absolutely novel (although his grandpa also helped a bit I think), but its pretty conservative compared to how far people are willing to go with his theories. So I just don't think it is right to say "Darwin says this, and Darwin says that"...because I've read his frigging book...and believe me what he says isn't nearly as interesting as what is being brought up here.

I have NO problem with speculation...just remember that speculation and a reference to a theory...is still pure speculation and not on the same level as a "new" theory. And that Darwin is dead, and you therefore can't use him as an appeal to authority unless you understand what he says inside and out. And that micro-evolution and macro-evolution is different. And that evolution is not an entity that does THIS and THAT or changes this or that, or creates this or that, but merely an observable biological phenomena based on mating behavior and survival and mendelian genetics and mutation.

 

[ai0tron]

Some people have attempted to force evolution on creatures. I remember reading about something where animals were repeatedly mutilated generation after generation to see if they could induce the mutilation as an evolutionary trait. They didn't accomplish anything in their 'experiments' but this idea brings up some intersting arguments.

You have to understand what exactly evolution is...and thats fairly difficult. It is IMO the passing on of beneficial mutations through CONSCIOUS selection... Whatever conscious is, conscious most likely being the mere functioning of a life form. Mutations are genetic changes that make us all different and occur randomly. Consciously we seek out the positive mutations and thus we evolve. So it is my opinion that evolution is always a result of the creatures choosing.

It's possible to argue that evolution is a natural process that occurs no matter what. In fact it might be silly to think that a species will always choose to evolve in a manner that is positive but then again it might be silly to assume the opposite. That aside there is the idea the evolution is like a force of god which changes us despite ourselves.

My personal opinion is evolution is real and people are evolving even as we speak. And it's less of a typical evolution due to survival of the fittest but more a result of the many different people in the world intermingling. And so the human race 'changes'.

I think the idea that different people from different regions would hear differently is perfectly valid. And I think that often this difference would be a genetic one and not one that results from cultural training, which is also very real.

 

[skippy]

Quote:

An urkel sized black guy can have a whiny high pitched voice. A bigger man may have a deeper more resonating chesty voice.

i suppose i'm a freak... i'm 5' with a deep voice.

 

[Tim D]

Honestly, my take on racial variation is the following.

People that are exposed towards a certain population group are more adept at picking out variation amongst that group.

Hence, someone who is asian and is constantly exposed to multiple asian cultures is easily able to distinguish between different asian people a vast array of variation. Whereas someone else may see only the MOST OBVIOUS variations for which they CAN see. This does not mean that biologically speaking, just because you ignore some variations, and emphasize others with your perception, does not mean it is ignored, or emphasized in the genes much to the same way.

Just like the possibility that all arabs start to look the same if you really aren't well exposed to that ethnicity.

Notice however that you can see and cite ALL SORTS of variations within racial groups for which you are well exposed to...but when it comes to other racial groups you have a tendency for images to blur and individualities to lessen.

Likewise you are probably better able to distinguish variation amongst tone of voice towards people speaking in your accent and language. But as an outsider to say a southern accent you might think, "hmmm that guy sounds like a cowboy like any other cowboy".

Anyhow, just keep in mind the strength of perception and culture. I mean how many people besides me thinks that black british chef sounds funny. Haha thats just a joke...all brits sound funny.

 

[KR...]

BTW, let's all take a step back for a second...

Don't you all think that this is really a long way to go for an excuse as to way the Labtec Elite-840 didn't live up to it's hype?

A bit much don't you think?

 

[Tim D]

Lol...damnit KR...I was going to do my dissertation on "Eastern Approval of Labtec Elite-840" and was hoping for a nobel peace prize.

 

[mbriant]

Now I can't get Urkel's voice out of my head.