Reproductivness as means to one's life?

[RayK 0]

It has been reported that for women reproduction has (can have) some positive health benefits. One or more full term pregnancies is often reported as one of the factors protecting against ovarian cancer. Also breastfeeding has been found to provide a measure of protection (and the reported numbers are significant - close to 50% chance reduction in some cases) against uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as well as breast cancer.

You have left out the fact that the women that do not get the cancers you mention do get other life threating diseases or cancers.

[RayK 0]

So, with that stated, are you or your close relatives around long enough to see any of the benefits of evolution?

We are the result of evolution. We are benefiting from it.

Yes, but you have taken my statements out of the context of my post.

I have never stated that man does not receive some benefit from evolution and if you read or reread my posts you will see that I have acknowledged that already. But, there are other evolutionary steps that no longer work out for man's benefit, such as hunger sensations and fat storage of which we will not be the benefactor of the next evolutionary step which if it happens may take many, many generations.

[~Sophia~ 0]

It has been reported that for women reproduction has (can have) some positive health benefits. One or more full term pregnancies is often reported as one of the factors protecting against ovarian cancer. Also breastfeeding has been found to provide a measure of protection (and the reported numbers are significant - close to 50% chance reduction in some cases) against uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as well as breast cancer.

You have left out the fact that the women that do not get the cancers you mention do get other life threating diseases or cancers.

Do you mean as a result of going through a pregnancy and breastfeeding?

[~Sophia~ 0]

But, there are other evolutionary steps that no longer work out for man's benefit, such as hunger sensations and fat storage of which we will not be the benefactor of the next evolutionary step which if it happens may take many, many generations.

What do you mean by your comment about hunger sensation and fat storage? (Because those mechanisms are beneficial).

Evolution overall -on a larger scope of things- has the goal of improvement (better adaptation to environment which usually means toward higher complexity) and not the opposite. It can be at the expense of a specie type or individual but the new specie type is an improvement (generally) and not a step down (as seen in our evolution).

[RayK 0]

It has been reported that for women reproduction has (can have) some positive health benefits. One or more full term pregnancies is often reported as one of the factors protecting against ovarian cancer. Also breastfeeding has been found to provide a measure of protection (and the reported numbers are significant - close to 50% chance reduction in some cases) against uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as well as breast cancer.

You have left out the fact that the women that do not get the cancers you mention do get other life threating diseases or cancers.

Do you mean as a result of going through a pregnancy and breastfeeding?

No, I meant that there are other things that will cause humans to die. An example is that a study in Europe showed that eating large amounts of vegetables reduced women's death rate from heart attacks but it also showed an increase in their rate of death from certain types of cancers.

[RayK 0]

But, there are other evolutionary steps that no longer work out for man's benefit, such as hunger sensations and fat storage of which we will not be the benefactor of the next evolutionary step which if it happens may take many, many generations.

What do you mean by your comment about hunger sensation and fat storage? (Because those mechanisms are beneficial).

Evolution overall -on a larger scope of things- has the goal of improvement (better adaptation to environment which usually means toward higher complexity) and not the opposite. It can be at the expense of a specie type or individual but the new specie type is an improvement (generally) and not a step down (as seen in our evolution).

I agree with your statements. But, it is the "larger scope" that I am trying to point out that you and I will never benefit from.

I also agree that hunger sesations and fat storgae can be beneficial, sometimes. But, whether I just ate or not, I can smell food that I enjoy and that sensation can cause hormones to be released that make me feel hunger and. If I am not conscious of my thoguhts and actions (like most people today) I will let my sensations drive me to go and eat more food while gathering ever more fat until I am in dire straits. If you will allow me to drop human context in this example and look just at domestic aniimals such as dogs and cats, you might see what I mean.

[~Sophia~ 0]

It has been reported that for women reproduction has (can have) some positive health benefits. One or more full term pregnancies is often reported as one of the factors protecting against ovarian cancer. Also breastfeeding has been found to provide a measure of protection (and the reported numbers are significant - close to 50% chance reduction in some cases) against uterine, cervical, and ovarian cancers as well as breast cancer.

You have left out the fact that the women that do not get the cancers you mention do get other life threating diseases or cancers.

Do you mean as a result of going through a pregnancy and breastfeeding?

No, I meant that there are other things that will cause humans to die.

Of course but since those causes are not a result of going though pregnancy and participating in breastfeeding, such fact, does not invalidate my point about observed benefits in some context.

[~Sophia~ 0]

But, there are other evolutionary steps that no longer work out for man's benefit, such as hunger sensations and fat storage of which we will not be the benefactor of the next evolutionary step which if it happens may take many, many generations.

What do you mean by your comment about hunger sensation and fat storage? (Because those mechanisms are beneficial).

Evolution overall -on a larger scope of things- has the goal of improvement (better adaptation to environment which usually means toward higher complexity) and not the opposite. It can be at the expense of a specie type or individual but the new specie type is an improvement (generally) and not a step down (as seen in our evolution).

I agree with your statements. But, it is the "larger scope" that I am trying to point out that you and I will never benefit from.

I don't disagree but it does benefit man overall.

I also agree that hunger sesations and fat storgae can be beneficial, sometimes. But, whether I just ate or not, I can smell food that I enjoy and that sensation can cause hormones to be released that make me feel hunger and. If I am not conscious of my thoguhts and actions (like most people today) I will let my sensations drive me to go and eat more food while gathering ever more fat until I am in dire straits. If you will allow me to drop human context in this example and look just at domestic aniimals such as dogs and cats, you might see what I mean.

Not sometimes. Without hunger sensation the chances of us starving our bodies would have been much greater as there would be no mechanism signaling the need for nourishment. More food than the minimum required is more beneficial than starvation. Additionally, those mechanisms (and their evolution) do not act in isolation but in combination with others to produce the desired effect. For example, we have the physical limitation of our stomach capacity and biochemical pathways sending messages to our brain that we are full. It is a malfunction which creates drastic overeating - the significance of which (of the malfunction) was not very significant up until very recently when the availability of food (increased abundance and a decrease in an individual effort required to prepare it) increased drastically. If a lot of people start to overeat with negative effects on species viability - eventually evolution will move us toward a correction.

Also, I think dropping human context may not be proper. Evolution operates within what is real - all of the context.

[~Sophia~ 0]

I agree with your statements. But, it is the "larger scope" that I am trying to point out that you and I will never benefit from.

An individual organism does benefit from this "larger scope trend" when it comes to the past events. Future events are irrelevant to an already existing individual.

[~Sophia~ 0]

(In any case, I see genes as nothing more than instructions for construction, not some kind of 'creature'. This idea that genes have some sort of 'drive' to reproduce themselves seems a distorted way of looking at evolution. There is no plan in evolution,it is only the result of survival in a given circumstance.)

I agree. Changes in genes are a result (a reaction) and not a cause. The trend is toward better adaptation for survival - an advancement/improvement of life (not particular species). It happens, that in the process driven by this adaptation, individual genes become inactive or even extinct so a gene as a unit does not "try" to preserve itself.

[RayK 0]

Of course but since those causes are not a result of going though pregnancy and participating in breastfeeding, such fact, does not invalidate my point about observed benefits in some context.

It was not my intention to invalidate the seemingly positive benefits of pregnancy and breastfeeding. It was my intention to show that all choices and the benefits that come also have consequences of which some are unexpected and can nullify the positive effect. For example, pregnancy and breasfeeding can cause negative effects that most women are not aware of when they make their original choice. Some of these negative effects are minimal while others can cause more serious discomfort or problems such as: pelvic floor disorder, increased proclivity for hemmorhoids, loss of dental and bone calcium, thrombocytopenic purpura, along with other items. And to counter your earlier post, some research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors. Other research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy. And finally research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease.

Everything comes at a cost, people should get as many facts as they can and then choose a route that is in accordance to their goals and values.

[RayK 0]

Also, I think dropping human context may not be proper. Evolution operates within what is real - all of the context.

I dropped the human context, because we are the only species that can consciously choose to stop eating.

[RayK 0]

I agree with your statements. But, it is the "larger scope" that I am trying to point out that you and I will never benefit from.

An individual organism does benefit from this "larger scope trend" when it comes to the past events. Future events are irrelevant to an already existing individual.

I agree that individual organism's receive benefits from the past and I have not stated differently. What I stated is that you and I will (most likely) not be around long enough to see the next changes/benefits of which you consider to be irrelevant.

[~Sophia~ 0]

It was my intention to show that all choices and the benefits that come also have consequences of which some are unexpected and can nullify the positive effect.

True but those are not given results of reproduction and we are talking here generally.

The risks are related to already existing predispositions, health state of the mother, and her choices. Plenty of women will go through the process and develop none of those conditions while all having gone through the biochemical changes which had shown to have some positive benefits. Women are designed biologically for going through the pregnancy. As it was pointed out, only those who reproduce are relevant (important) on the evolutionary level so evolving a biochemical benefit linked to reproduction (while not occurring otherwise) makes sense. Those who successfully reproduced may do it again (desired outcome) and health of the mother is beneficial to the survival of the offspring (desired outcome).

And to counter your earlier post, some research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors.

This is not an example of a consequence of pregnancy as such but of fertility treatments (man made, not naturally occurring physical and hormonal conditions).

Other research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy.

Correlation is not causation. Pregnancy does not cause or increase the chances of cancer (much of the evidence suggest the opposite). The results of pregnancy for unhealthy organisms is not the standard by which we judge its value status (nor is it "on the radar' of evolutionary mechanisms).

And finally research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease.

I have pointed out to possible biochemical benefits of a pregnancy (when successful). The fact that multiple pregnancies can produce too much strain on the body of the mother is a separate issue.

Everything comes at a cost, people should get as many facts as they can and then choose a route that is in accordance to their goals and values.

Yes. I think part of the reason we are talking past each other a bit is that I am talking generally and you are thinking in terms of individual choices. It maybe unwise for a particular woman to ever become pregnant but that does not invalidate the fact that successful healthy pregnancy can have positive benefits for a woman (because it is of evolutionary benefit).

[~Sophia~ 0]

I agree with your statements. But, it is the "larger scope" that I am trying to point out that you and I will never benefit from.

An individual organism does benefit from this "larger scope trend" when it comes to the past events. Future events are irrelevant to an already existing individual.

I agree that individual organism's receive benefits from the past and I have not stated differently. What I stated is that you and I will (most likely) not be around long enough to see the next changes/benefits of which you consider to be irrelevant.

I objected to "So, with that stated, are you or your close relatives around long enough to see any of the benefits of evolution?" by pointing out that we already have benefited from it. Furthermore, small, random changes in traits occur. These may not "stay" on a population level (a person may not reproduce or such change may get corrected back to original by a repair mechanism) but they will benefit that individual. Ayn Rand certainly benefited from her unusual extraordinary mind.

It is a mistake to be thinking of evolution in terms of what is next (and judging it by that measure). The next does not apply to us by definition.

The benefactor is the life form in the future - the gene is only a means of change.

[RayK 0]

Sophia, I agree that a correlation is not a cause. But, from your original post where you attempted to point out benefits of pregnancy and breast feeding you did not give them as causes either. Your post states that pregnancy and breast feeding was reported as one of the factors protecting against cancer(s) which does not make it a definite cause either. What I was trying to point out is that women that have been pregnant and breast feed still die of those cancers and other things.

[RayK 0]

The benefactor is the life form in the future - the gene is only a means of change.

So, when we look at the worker bee and the drone/male bee, who would you call the benefactor in those individual organisms?

[~Sophia~ 0]

What I was trying to point out is that women that have been pregnant and breast feed still die of those cancers and other things.

With a reduced rate as a group (in my presented case of various cancers) than those women who never went through those experiences.

[~Sophia~ 0]

The benefactor is the life form in the future - the gene is only a means of change.

So, when we look at the worker bee and the drone/male bee, who would you call the benefactor in those individual organisms?

Can you elaborate on your question? I am not sure I understand.

[RayK 0]

What I was trying to point out is that women that have been pregnant and breast feed still die of those cancers and other things.

With a reduced rate as a group (in my presented case of various cancers) than those women who never went through those experiences.

Are you trying to show that there is a genetic link to pregnancy/reproduction and longevity?

[RayK 0]

The benefactor is the life form in the future - the gene is only a means of change.

So, when we look at the worker bee and the drone/male bee, who would you call the benefactor in those individual organisms?

Can you elaborate on your question? I am not sure I understand.

If I understand your above quote, you stated that the benefactor (of evolution) is the life form in the future. I am assuming that you would agree that the life form living now is a benefactor of previous evolutionary change. So, if we consider the drone/male bee to be a life form that should be benefiting from past evolutionary change, please explain how being kept around until mating with the queen (of which the drone/male dies after) or being discarded from the hive in the autumn is a benefit. Also, please explain how being a worker bee that literally works themselves to death is a benefit to that life form.

[~Sophia~ 0]

What I was trying to point out is that women that have been pregnant and breast feed still die of those cancers and other things.

With a reduced rate as a group (in my presented case of various cancers) than those women who never went through those experiences.

Are you trying to show that there is a genetic link to pregnancy/reproduction and longevity?

No I did not say that those women who reproduce live longer (this would be a much broader claim). I am not familiar with any such data at this point. My claim was only related to observed rates of cancer.

[~Sophia~ 0]

If I understand your above quote, you stated that the benefactor (of evolution) is the life form in the future. I am assuming that you would agree that the life form living now is a benefactor of previous evolutionary change.

Life form on a level of species (but not necessarily wanting to preserve any type at the expense of evolving to something new).

So, if we consider the drone/male bee to be a life form that should be benefiting from past evolutionary change, please explain how being kept around until mating with the queen (of which the drone/male dies after) or being discarded from the hive in the autumn is a benefit. Also, please explain how being a worker bee that literally works themselves to death is a benefit to that life form.

The benefits are life form as a specie wise and not necessarily individual wise. An individual becomes more relevant to the evolutionary mechanism when the lifespan is long but offspring is drastically limited (like in the case of humans) and further when offspring takes a long time to mature (achieve reproductive state). When it is not the case, like in the case of insects or bacteria, for example - individual is not that relevant.

[RayK 0]

Sophia, if in your post (#73) you are stating that the specie is the fundamental unit of selection, then I must disagree. I instead think that the fundamental unit of selection is the "genetic replicator" of which the individual organism is the carrier. Do humans (or any organism) get a benefit from evolution/natural selection? Yes, but individual humans are not what is fundamentally evolving although we do reap the benefits of that which does.

With that said, I would like to add to it that I do not expect to change your mind nor probably others. The only thing I would like to offer at this point is that for those that care to take a deeper look into evolution that Dr. Richard Dawkins gives a different approach worthy of consideration.

[~Sophia~ 0]

Sophia, if in your post (#73) you are stating that the specie is the fundamental unit of selection, then I must disagree.

Please define fundamental unit of selection.

I said that a better adaptation for survival is the driving force behind evolution. It is not necessarily to make every individual organism better adapted. A bee did not evolve to be able to survive on its own - it needs the combined effort of other type of bees. A human can. When it comes to the species that have short life spans and a large number of offspring - individual death is not significant and thus the evolutionary pressure to preserve every single organism is low.

I instead think that the fundamental unit of selection is the "genetic replicator" of which the individual organism is the carrier.

What is a genetic replicator? A whole genome? Single gene?

I do not know what that means. Genetic material does not "decide" or "select" which random genetic changes stay. Its preservation, if that was the goal of the process, could be achieved by much simpler means.