Acne & Evolution

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
zackcentury
Posts: 6
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Sun 04 Apr 2010 07:17
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by zackcentury »

Is everyone except those on the Wai diet an "extremely unique case"? I was just thrown off by your wording in the earlier post.

Nothing you just recently said seems outrageous, it all seems to fit the Wai hypothesis or currently accepted theory...but wouldn't obese or arthritic dogs/cats/kookaburras just die in the wild? I don't keep pets, but aren't some of those problems related? Like extreme overweight and inactivity perhaps having some effect on fatigue and bone stress? Could arthritis ever be misdiagnosed as osteoporosis? Then there is the fact that domesticated animals simply live longer than wild animals, or are bred and pampered to live longer, and are under much more scrutiny and research...

Arthritis happened to dinosaurs, saber-toothed cats, and still happens to wild bears and apes today. It took me no time to find a study saying 20-something percent of certain bears show indication of arthritis. I'm not sure of how bear and ape diets have changed since humans have encroached on their habitats... and we can't be certain of dino and sabertooth diets, but perhaps they didn't do anything extremely unnatural and still had the problem of arthritis. Do you mean to say that these cases in wild animals are the only ones that had a real genetic tendency for disease?
bananarama
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by Oscar »

zackcentury wrote:"Any site that has strikingly different information (different from common health-sites) is a warning sign that it may be an unprofessional site".
LOL :D

For the record, I believe that our genes take care of two things (very simply said): birth characteristics (these include things like eye color and genetic defects, diseases, and such) and a predisposition blueprint. As such, if a disease is not present at birth, it falls under the predisposition category.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

zackcentury wrote:Is everyone except those on the Wai diet an "extremely unique case"? I was just thrown off by your wording in the earlier post.

Nothing you just recently said seems outrageous, it all seems to fit the Wai hypothesis or currently accepted theory...but wouldn't obese or arthritic dogs/cats/kookaburras just die in the wild? I don't keep pets, but aren't some of those problems related? Like extreme overweight and inactivity perhaps having some effect on fatigue and bone stress? Could arthritis ever be misdiagnosed as osteoporosis? Then there is the fact that domesticated animals simply live longer than wild animals, or are bred and pampered to live longer, and are under much more scrutiny and research...

Arthritis happened to dinosaurs, saber-toothed cats, and still happens to wild bears and apes today. It took me no time to find a study saying 20-something percent of certain bears show indication of arthritis. I'm not sure of how bear and ape diets have changed since humans have encroached on their habitats... and we can't be certain of dino and sabertooth diets, but perhaps they didn't do anything extremely unnatural and still had the problem of arthritis. Do you mean to say that these cases in wild animals are the only ones that had a real genetic tendency for disease?
the 'extremely unique case' referred to our modern lifestyle, as we are the only ones intelligent enough to fuck up our natural lifestyle in the animal kingdom, even though we can also fuck up other animals' lifestyles sometimes too.

Also of course it makes sense that arthritis (inflammation) happens to bears as they reach the elderly age, because of the lifestyle they have, but in the wild animals degrade much more quickly because it happens naturally. Also, was this study about truly wild bears, or ones in a Zoo, because you have to remember domesticated animals are different. Also, if it was about wild bears, did it say if they were in some kind of protected park, kept well fed, etc? If bears are living past their natural old age, of course they will having old age related problems... Anyway, Modern humans can get arthritis and a host of other problems these days much sooner than wild counterparts, because of the way we abuse our bodies with our severely unnatural diets and habits.

As far as animal obesity, yes they would die more quickly, but it doesn't happen overnight and we would be able to see at least some instances of it in the wild. The fact is though unless it's already part of the animals nature (like starving carnivores etc) animals don't overeat like they do when given addictive toxic modern food, as it has chemicals in it that trick their appetites just like ours, and throws off their natural instinct and sense of food after a given time of repeated abuse just like in us.

Anyway, keep in mind that of course degradation will happen to 'dinosaurs, saber tooth cats, bears and apes' because they age, too. They do not however commonly get it at the early stages where it is unnatural like humans do. Every animal has it's natural age range of dying or becoming degraded, and many wild animals of course don't live as long as humans do, but they're quality of life in those years is generally outstanding, unless they have some kind of physical injury, are in the wrong habitat and the food supply is low, etc etc (all of the non-internal factors).

The point I was trying to make in the previous post was that all living things have negative side effects when they stray from the habitat and diet they have adapted to over an extremely long period of time, and when the unnatural diet/habitat/lifestyle is introduced, of course a whole host of problems arise--that doesn't mean we should blame our genes for not being godlike and withstanding the idiocy of our 'intelligent' unnatural lifestyle.
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by B-Rad »

panacea wrote:The only reason I even have to post those 'ramblings' is because you ignore the logical facts
Or because you ignore previously addressed points in the topic, but most of the time its just posting irrelevant statements.
panacea wrote:and instead wish to push this communities thought in the wrong direction
sorry, didn't know you were this community's saviour, lol.
panacea wrote:by basing assumptions on non-logic.
rambling is non-logic
panacea wrote:If you just wanted everyone to sit back and agree with your loose theory, then you shouldn't have posted on a intelligent group of people's board.
personally attacking posters doesn't further the discussion at all. you posted your opinions, I didn't respond, so move on. No one is forcing you to agree with anything.
zackcentury wrote:It's difficult to debate this topic if everyone can't first agree about how evolution and genetics "work". One thing to keep in mind is that evolution does NOT happen because 'it' wants to accomplish anything. There is no ultimate goal of evolution, there is no intelligence or decision making involved in evolution--humans and animals can make decisions, which may in fact influence a selection process--but traits do not arise because evolution "wants" them to.
this is opinion
zackcentury wrote:But the hormone levels during puberty do not explain adult acne, nor can they support acne's role in sexual selection in a people who only very recently invented dating, marriage, contraception, kids at age 30, etc.
people have been doing that for 6000+ years, since civilizations started.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

Or because you ignore previously addressed points in the topic, but most of the time its just posting irrelevant statements.
Name a point I've ignored? I thought you said I encompassed all points in my posts and you wished you could have the intellectual capacity to do that like me? Contradicting your statements like this isn't very impressive.


Problem is that you STILL haven't answered why females wouldn't just become fertile in later stages if early pregnancy was such a terrible problem for us? Let me point this out so maybe you can understand it's not an opinion but a question begging for some kind of logical backing for your opinion. If you continue not to back up your opinions why should we even read what you say?

I could say the world was created by a giant pink flamingo, and if you say that's B.S. because there's no reason for a giant pink flamingo to create the earth, there's scientific explanations that make more sense, I'll just say hey that's not sound reason and logic you came up with there B-rad, that's your opinion, move on! (See the problem with your mentality now?)

Second problem is that your argument is basically "It's a genetic disorder, but it can be circumvented by proper lifestyle choices..."

This is the tunnel vision modern 'doctors' used to have and sometimes still have today. Some kind of atomic bomb would go off near a village, the people would have all kinds of problems, and the doctors would first say oh it must be some kind of genetic disorder. No shit Sherlock, but what made the genetics get disorderly? Hmm maybe radiation. So let's ignore the cause, and blame it on our genes for not having super-duper rayshields against environmental toxins/hazards! Same thing with acne, just because it's allowed to happen in our genes (because of the way our skin works) let's call it a genetic disorder? It's completely using the term in the wrong context and completely false.

The difference with your idea is that it's not even partly a genetic disorder from some outside source, but not a genetic disorder at all (since you have no basis to call it one so far, other than "hey lotsa peeples got it!") The equivalent of saying that colds are a genetic disorder that prevented people from getting it on when they're bodies were sick, oh yeah....
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by Oscar »

Guys, let's try to keep the discussion friendly, shall we?
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

:twisted: I blame wickedfire.com
zackcentury
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun 04 Apr 2010 07:17
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by zackcentury »

bananarama
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by Oscar »

;D
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by B-Rad »

panacea wrote:Name a point I've ignored? I thought you said I encompassed all points in my posts and you wished you could have the intellectual capacity to do that like me?
B-Rad wrote:
panacea wrote:Both are 'natural' but not 'naturally evolved for' except for survival
you mean not optimally evolved for? and where did you get this opinion from?
1.
panacea wrote:What I was trying to get across is that acne falls into the same category as moles and such, yes I realize they are not the same thing, but they are our simply our skins 'defection' because of an imbalance in the body, whether it be of domestic or foreign imbalances (too many hormones, too many viruses, etc).
2.
panacea wrote:but it's really easy to see that if someone produced more acne at certain times, more snot at certain times, more period blood at certain times, or more moles or something, these wouldn't be effective basis's for people to define mating screenings or what have you.
3.
panacea wrote:I guess I wasn't clear enough about this:
I said that because all of those things are not reliable - evolution takes a very very long time, no matter the customs of some societies or whatever, people aren't going to develop acne to deter mating, especially since there's no reason to deter mating. If there was a reason to deter mating, something that's actually logical would develop, but not evolutionarily, but socially. Because the deterrent for mating is not always constant over a long long time. For example, if it WAS, then teenage girls would simply not start menstruating until later.
4.
panacea wrote:I don't get this at all, you're saying we developed acne to deter rape lol? You have to keep in mind waxed shaved girls with pretty bikinis didn't happen while 99.9999% of what our bodies are now evolved from. That means some acne (which wasnt even as bad as it is now because of noncooked food) wasnt much of an issue except for hormone fluctuations, and societies views would have been completely different for 'attraction'. Probably things like being able to bear children, having strength, and being proportional were more important back then than the modern view that girls have to look like goddesses, and remember we haven't evolved the past two thousand years to get acne, because it just doesn't happen that fast across continents. (for anyone reading - it's actually not a disease as he calls it, because it's a normal bodily function for the skin to expel toxins when other systems are overloaded, the reason it's wide spread is because cooked food is widespread, unripe foods are widespread too, and living conditions are unnatural, that doesn't make cooked food OR acne a disease (although cookedfood is a disease-trigger))
5.
panacea wrote:I don't even understand why he thinks it's a genetic disorder lol. I mean, if you argue that oh, the reason it's got all these flaws in my theory is because it can be circumvented... ok.. then you could argue a billion other things are genetic disorders too which they're not. For example, you could say oh, well, cancer is genetically prone in everyone.. some more than others.. and when you get cancer, from eating all these toxic foods and stuff and doing all these unnatural things, then a tumor grows, well that's a genetic disorder to stop people from living forever and having kids when they're 80. I mean come on. Genetically there's links to every problem, including acne, that doesn't mean it's the source. Genetically we are wired not to survive without oxygen, it doesn't mean if we went in outerspace with no oxygen tank we would say that the suffocation that would take place is the result of a genetic disease just because our genes play a role in what we are. It's just a bodily reaction to not having enough resources (oxygen), whereas acne is a bodily reaction to having too many bad/imbalanced amount of resources (toxins).
panacea wrote:Also please tell us why the ancient wild humans waited thousands of years for acne to develop to loosely patch the problem rather than just evolve women to not be fertile as soon, as would be the logical answer to the problem, since it's the answer in every other case of animal mating as well as our own, in reality.
I actually missed the 1 rare semi-rational thing you've actually posted. MY BAD. Because puberty carries with it physical maturity and development. the longer an organism takes to reach full maturity, the longer it is left vulnerable.
zackcentury wrote:http://www.xkcd.com/386/
yep, the community messiah hard at work
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by B-Rad »

4got this part
panacea wrote: as would be the logical answer to the problem, since it's the answer in every other case of animal mating as well as our own, in reality.
you mean other than the monkey examples I already posted? lol
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

Wow, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I can't even keep up with the garbage you're spewing out now.

I asked you to name a point I've ignored. Then you show a statement of mine that you didn't quite comprehend? That's not a point I've ignored, that's a point you couldn't understand, asked me to elaborate on, which I didn't because it's self explanatory. To answer your questions: "you mean not optimally evolved for?" No I mean what I said, or I wouldn't have said it that way. And I got the logical conclusion from using my own skills of reasoning based on previous truths I've learned (seriously, could it be any more obvious).
but the cause/result in acne is unnatural just like a ugly healing wound on a lions leg. Both are 'natural' but not 'naturally evolved for' except for survival,
This means that acne on humans, as well as a flesh wound on a lions leg, are not naturally evolved for functions (it's so obvious it's sad), they are Results of physical harm. The lions leg wound was caused by some outside force, resulting in the flesh wound. The acne was caused by some inside force (toxin/hormone buildup, resulting in the acne bumps). Really I can't see how anyone could twist this simple fact around but you did it congratulations. The point again is, they are both natural things, acne the result of toxin buildup and no other exit route is natural, that doesn't mean we evolved it to be that way naturally, just like there's no genetic design in a lion to deal with another lions bite out of it's leg, it just repairs what's done, that part is genetic. There's also no genetic design in humans to create acne out of nothing for social mating or any other B.S., only to fix internal problems by getting the toxins or side effect substances from hormone imbalances out. This is why, on our natural diet and lifestyle habits, 99% of us don't have acne, and if we do, it's only very minimal and for very short periods of time. According to your theory B-rad, this would -maybe- (cough, give me a break) prevent rape for a few days. Woo, definitely worth evolving thousands of years for.

THEN you go on to list some quotes of mine (numbered, LOL) Have you lost your freakin mind man? They're just hanging there, with no purpose... I already posted that information mate, why quote it if you're not going to respond? Lol.
I actually missed the 1 rare semi-rational thing you've actually posted. MY BAD. Because puberty carries with it physical maturity and development. the longer an organism takes to reach full maturity, the longer it is left vulnerable.
This is actually a logical conclusion, I'm impressed, however there's a fundamental flaw in your thinking. If there were green unicorn-pimples a foot long coming out of girls heads during puberty for any substantial length of time, human males would adapt to think that's sexy, just because you in your modern tunnel vision think it's repulsive perhaps, doesnt mean that in the wild anything coming out of the majority of the female populations bodies when they become fertile will be seen as 'ugly' or even 'unattractive' at all, because human sexuality is learned and adaptive, anything can be seen in a good or bad light, and during puberty, wild human boys are going to see anything on a girl at that time in good light, logically, there is absolutely no basis to think otherwise. This completely refutes any and all evidence for your theory so I'm looking forward to hearing your response.
B-Rad
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue 18 Dec 2007 04:47

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by B-Rad »

I have a nomination for greatest quote of the thread:
panacea wrote: "And I got the logical conclusion from using my own skills of reasoning based on previous truths I've learned (seriously, could it be any more obvious)."
panacea wrote:If there were green unicorn-pimples a foot long coming out of girls heads during puberty for any substantial length of time, human males would adapt to think that's sexy, just because you in your modern tunnel vision think it's repulsive perhaps, doesnt mean that in the wild anything coming out of the majority of the female populations bodies when they become fertile will be seen as 'ugly' or even 'unattractive' at all, because human sexuality is learned and adaptive, anything can be seen in a good or bad light, and during puberty, wild human boys are going to see anything on a girl at that time in good light, logically, there is absolutely no basis to think otherwise. This completely refutes any and all evidence for your theory so I'm looking forward to hearing your response.
This is wrong too as there are identifiable universal patterns of physical attraction in the human species as shown through a vast collection of empirical data. Not through your own "skills of reasoning based on previous truths I've learned". but at least now you've moved on from simply repeating the same things in every post, lol.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

No it's not wrong because regardless of patterns, there is nothing to say that males would be unattracted by pimples on females in the wild, just as in some areas of the world today more fat on females is actually attractive, it's only the modern view that skinny is better. In the past smoking was also considered sexy, even though it was making the insides of people 'uglier' on a health level. In many countries smelly sweat is also prized in attraction. Sex isn't going to stop in any society because of a few pimples, sorry. There's piercings, not all metal, some stick through the nose piercings in tribes that represent status and on and on, you're statement that patterns (one of which is symmetry) is the end all be all of attraction is wrong, plain and simple. Do you disagree with all of the above? Probably, which means you're completely out of reach of reason. Otherwise you're wrong. Which is it?

Also again, the point that I made about the unicorn pimple, is still true, because the fact that universal patterns exist DOES NOT mean that they are the sole criteria of attraction. A 'vast collection of empirical show this'. LOL. You really think it's bad that I think for myself and it's noble you have to rely on data by other thinkers? Look at all of the assumptions by people like you relying on that same methodology saying that 'whole grains are healthy' and 'vegetables stop cancer' and whatnot because they don't get to the root of the problem using logic and reasoning, they are in a narrow minded tunnel vision 'empirical data' religious viewpoint, which is incredibly slow and if everyone relied on it we'd all be looking at each other instead of the real world for answers.

I think it's hilarious you point out that thinking for yourself is so appalling to be the greatest quote of the thread ahahaha.
panacea
Posts: 990
Joined: Wed 23 Jun 2010 22:08

Re: Acne & Evolution

Post by panacea »

Wow, I just realized that I can't believe this turned into a discussion.
I won't be replying to this thread anymore out of it's sheer stupidity.

I feel sorry for anyone who believes that:

1. Acne could deter rape
2. Acne could deter sex
3. Since when and if acne is/was ever found in healthy individuals of the evolutionary past, it is mostly around the time of puberty, because of hormone levels, that this would be ANYTHING BUT a signal that females were ready and fertile, and a turn on for clever males.
4. Your body will intentionally fuck up your hormones, potentially causing all kinds of problems including permanent infertility, to simply hope and deter males.
5. That acne on males would somehow deter women, which don't even care about those things but rather social status and physical fitness (back then).
6. That acne was even a problem in our natural environment.
7. That a side effect of hormones and toxins, acne, could solve a mating problem.
8. That everything that goes wrong in the body must have some kind of evolutionary purpose, because my body is perfect even if I fuel it with crap.
9. That crap is magically handled by the body, and only allowed to show on the skin when there's evil men out to get pretty girls and pretty girls out to get pretty boys.
10. That attraction was judged so detailed, down to the last pimple, in our evolutionary past. I don't know of any other animal that would be so judgemental, physical deformities? ok. huge lesions? ok. missing a leg? ok. some pimples? give me a break, we were animals not fashion designers, guys had hair everywhere you couldn't even see the acne really. for all we know, IF acne was even present (which 99% chance it wasnt a problem im just using this guys crazy idea to prove his own idea wrong by showing the many many flaws) why wouldn't it have been a fun task to pop them like monkeys pick off ticks? You don't see monkeys going oh my, he/she has fleas or ticks or whatever lets not have sex... they just take care of eachother (who would have thought). And a lot of monkeys have orgies, some mothers do it with their sons, and there's nothing to suggest we didn't like all kinds of pleasure either. If acne really served a purpose, like our skin pigmentation does for sun tolerance, then it would make sense. This is just some B.S. idea someone came up with because they are trying to find a fairytale explanation for a clear warning sign that something is wrong within their body. This is sooo FREAKING easily proved, or as b-rad says, 'circumvented' by eating well that it's sad. I guess all of the 'healthy eating circumventers' back then got raped the fuck out of our genetic history right brad :)
Locked