Does anybod have an article from Evolution and Human Behavior (volum 27, issue 2, pages 121-130)?
965374
Abstract\nBoth men and women prefer someone with a “good sense of humor” as a relationship partner. However, two recent studies have shown that men are not attracted to funny women, suggesting the sexes use the phrase good sense of humor differently. To investigate this question, we measured the importance participants placed on a partner's production of humor vs. receptivity to their own humor. Men emphasized the importance of their partners' receptivity to their own humor, whereas women valued humor production and receptivity equally. In a second task, participants chose whether they preferred a person who only produced humor or a person who only appreciated their own humor for several types of relationships. Women preferred those who produced humor for all types of relationships, whereas men preferred those who were receptive to their own humor, particularly for sexual relationships. Our results suggest that sexual selection may have operated on men's and women's preferences during humorous interaction in dramatically different ways. \n\nKeywords: Sex differences; Sexual selection; Mate choice; Humor appreciation; Humor production \n\nhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4HWXM5P-1&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2006&_alid=485679278&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5031&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e7ce361d57541e3bfcfbe312a9dde04e
724158
Er... the theory of evoltion?  It's just a theory though.  Lots of loop holes.  :)
897391
I think that any rational, reasonable individual when presented with the weight of our current knowledge and understanding regards the process of evolution would reasonably have to conclude that evolution is indeed at work on global biology.\n\nHowever, evolution is not just restricted to biological systems.  Consider our collective sense of humour.  Things which were considered hilarious in the very early part of the 20th century (silent movies) some of that humour is now so old to have lost any humourous content.  Why is that?  Because we've moved on and our tastes have evolved to more complex and alternative themes based on our modern life etc.\n\nConsider financial systems.  They too are evolving.  Capitalism is another test bed for the survival of the fitest.  There are winners and losers just as there are in biology.\n\nThere are many more examples.  The reduction of the variety and extinction of languages etc.\n\nThe validity of Darwinianism is only questioned (or rather refuted) by those of a religious nature who have been indoctrinated against the idea and are determined to continue to deny its validity irrespective of the weight of evidence presented for it.\n\nLogic does not play a part in their argument.  Faith and belief without understanding is all that is required.  In my opinion people who carry on about their lives in this bubble of ignorance are neither rational nor reasonable individuals.  They are brainwashed into submission and ignorance.  And sadly they have a tendency to fight long and hard to stay that way.  Most although not all are beyond help.\n\nOne final example of evolution in action:  It has been predicted that science will have eradicated religion within a couple centuries, as increases in the availability of education and the spread of democracy continue.  Given the negative impact that such religious stigmatisation and dogma is currently having on main stream scientific advancement, as far as I'm concerned, societal evolution resulting in the demise religion can't happen soon enough.
264396
Great stuff going on right now having to do with developmental genes (like Hox genes).  You may know this as "Evo Devo" or evolutionary developmental biology.\n\nCheck out the book "Endless Forms Most Beautiful," by Sean Carroll.  He also gives ideas for research and new fields, lots of peer-reviewed papers.\n\nI just read it this Fall, it was great.
94824
patzky99 wrote:\n\ni had read an earlier answer about how we use descriptions of animals' behavior to apply to humans. i'll check back and see if i can find it...\n\nwell of course i can't now. if i recall the gist of it was that we lump some of our 'worst' behaviors along with animals... so you get a 'wolf whistle', or a person or a movie is a 'real dog', or someone is 'crazy like a fox'. some positive behaviors can be ascribed too, 'proud as a peacock' or 'busy as a bee'. perhaps these phrases are just an extension of the days when we assigned human characteristics to the animal world.\n\nwho was that guy who was 'acting like a loon'?  thanks for the 2nd chance :)
967639
http://www.practical-philosophy.org.uk/Volume4Articles/PlatoTheoryOfLove.htm\ncheck out that link.  And remember, don't plagarize.  Good luck on your paper!
1134801
Relationship to other primates had been suspected for years before Darwin   (1840's)-- simple observation.  Now with the deciphering of the geome for both chimps, and humans, relationship has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.  We are all so similar even back to fish ---a central body with 5 protrusions -- head and 4 limbs.  I don't know it all, lady, but taught science and math for years, read Discover Magazine, Scientific American, and watch the Science channel.   Fascinating.... Evolution is no longer a theory, but a fact, a lovely fact.  Our medical research on rats, dogs, and other critters would be worthless if evolution were not..   Helpful?  The question is toooo complicated to fully explain.  But you can start by reading scientific journals....   Good luck  Life is a life-long learning process.....  and god has nothing to do with it.  Critters survived, and evolved.  If a gene were detrimental, the critter carrying it didn't live long enough to procreate.  It the mutated gene was beneficial, it aided in that critter to live long enough to reproduce.  Lots of evolution is even occuring today.  Google things like Darwin's Finches, pigmy elephants, and of course dinasaurs.  \n\nOne quick interesting thing about moths in England to illustrate evolution:  In the early 1600's, before the Industrial Revolution began and coal producing smoke was a fact of life, a particular moth was mostly white, and blended into the tree bark on which it laid its eggs. The tree bark was white. Occasionally a grey-black one was hatched, but never lived very long -- birds got it.  As the Industrial Revolution took off in England, producing black soot, that black soot began to cover the trees' bark.  In less than 150 years, the white variety was gone, and there existed only the darker mutant.  Beginning in 1950 when England passed anti air pollution laws, those trees began loosing the soot off of the tree bark.  Yup, you guessed it..... the white variant is now dominant........ evolution in action  ,,,,,Helpful????
126130
Write an essay ( a detailed one) on DISORDERS OF EVOLUTION.Rh+ve,evolved speech,early cutting and early loss of canine teeth,etc.More on request.
333457
How did evolution change over time? You mean...how did evolution evolve?  Heh.  The evolution of evolution.  That's funny.
431530
Check out the following website, but what article and what section of the paper was it in?
43569
There is a contributor named Rob Wallace that you might want to do a search on (a few recent postings).\n\nI would be interested on your take of my study below Nik.
202908
I'd say... Evolution.\nThis journal has been around since 1946 and was founded by some of the greatest evolutionary scientists of all time (the "fathers" of the New Synthesis)\n\nhttp://lifesciences.asu.edu/evolution/\n\nhttp://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/?request=get-current-issue
802256
this maybe helpful \n\n\n\nwww.springerlink.com/index/R617G25W81437Q01.pdf\n\nhttp://www.springerlink.com/index/R617G25W81437Q01.pdf
112917
Nice effort and beneficial.\nThey want to trace back the details of human generations which are vague.\nWell, they "search" for Adam, right?\nThey must believe in creationism rather than evolution.\n\nHopefully people will realise that we humans are all the same. We came from the same root. No more racist solicitation.\nThe theory of evolution is focused mostly on physiques. They do not care to think that men have minds and spirit.\nIt is clearly wrong to define us physically just like the animals. We are better than animals. \nMoreover, we are the best creations. \n\nI do not really get the picture with the female ancestor to date earlier than the common male ancestor. Could you explain to me about that?\n\nIt is weird for woman and man to live not in the same time. How could they reproduce?\n\nMaybe I will come back later. By the way, I think "boffin" means buffoons.\n\n\n\nThank you Kurdiatcha for explaining to me.\nI was not expecting you but the questioner herself but thank you.\n\nI would like to edit some more but have no time.\nHere's a little correction:\n\nWhat I meant by define us physically just like the animals is to take ONLY physique into acount.\n\nThe brain differs from the mind. Animals have brains but not minds. They have life but not soul.\n\nBrain is physique. Mind is defined as the ability to learn and understand things by self, not gifted.\nOf course, we need the help of God to understand about something.\nMind is also the sign of rationality of humans.\n\nI will continue later.\n\n\n\nSorry for keeping you waiting so long, Nelly. I had to take time to make a structure of my next explainations which are:\nThis is going to be quite a LONG lecture.\n\n\nHuman = (Physique) (Mind) (Life) (Soul)\nAnimal = (Physique) (Life)\n\nPhysique = Physique?\nIt is most probably. If to follow the law of balance; equation and relation, Human seems to have more advantages such as Mind and Soul, therefore their Physique must be less advantageous than that of Animal.\n\nLife = Life\n\nSoul = Mind (Feelings) (Life)\nMind = Soul (Life) (Physique)\nFeelings = (Physique) (Soul)\nMind ≠ Brain\nBrain = Mind (Physique) (Life) = Brain\nIn this context, Mind means the controller. Brain of Human and Brain of Animal are similar but not the same.\n\nMind = Soul\nMind + Soul (Animal) = Human\nMind and Soul are similar yet they are not one. Plus, they are parallel. Physique capsulizes Brain where in the Brain lies Mind. Life capsulizes Soul. The parallelism of both must be broken and should be met in order to achieve the same goal; finding God. \nOnce they have combined, the journey of finding God will be clearer.\n\nPhysique (Mind) + Life (Soul) = Human\nSoul + Mind ≠ Human\nPhysique + Life ≠ Human\n\nTherefore, Physique and Life make up Animal’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life and Life enlivens Physique. It is mutual symbiosis.\n\nPhysique, Mind, Life and Soul make up Human’s characteristics. Physique capsulizes Life, Soul and Mind, Life and Soul enlivens Physique, Mind controls Physique and Life, so does Soul. Soul controls Mind but Mind decides initially.\n\nConsider Human like a box (Physique) powered by Life externally. Inside the box, there is a ball of Soul and Mind; Mind takes up only the core while Soul is the ball inside out. With the ball, the box is generated internally.\n\nThe three parts: Physique, Life and Soul must be available in order for a Human to love but irrationally minded. Therefore, Mind is the only part of rationality. It is the only part of intelligence.\n\n\nThe above equations show the difference between Human and Animal. I know it is quizzical to you, so it is to me.\nThe sign with the small "l" is actually a small number 1, indicates Human.\n\nWell, if we to trace the generations of human, we must primarily try to understand human. If you do not understand anything, tell me. I will try to make you understand the equation. Even I do n
241834
I beleive this is the one:\n\nhttp://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~braslavs/Biophysics/Articles/Wei%20Zhang/Rosensweig2002.pdf
234681
This is a large question, and the source of much controversy, conflict, anger, and hilarity for all of recorded history. Aristophanes' Lysistrata is merely one of the earliest in a long literary tradition exploring the question. James Thurber is only one of the most recent, and funniest, of those writing in English.\n\nOnly in the last few decades has there been any scientific evidence which even begins to explain why the so long observed differences exist. \n\nIt is clear that there are, on average, anatomic differences between female and male brains. For instance, in the connection between the two hemispheres. And imaging studies of working brains ('PET scans') have shown some apparently characteristic differences in the areas of the brain used by males and females when their brains are ostensibly doing the same thing. There is even enough of such evidence that there are now centers for the study of gender differences. \n\nFrom a behavioral viewpoint, the field of evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology) has produced a series of testable hypotheses about differences between female and male behavior. These are essentially unique in the field because they suggest experiments which can test them. Thus far, this approach has shown promise in accounting for some of the non-cultural non-religious behavior differences. Thus far, even such things as the clothing styles chosen when going to dance clubs have been accounted for to some extent by this approach. Much of this work is controversial amongst one or another group since it deals with issues (eg, sex, reproduction, mating behavior, ...) which are of great importance socially or religiously.\n\nThe most reasonable account of behavioral differences between the sexes is based on reproductive success. Males who behaved this way (or these ways) tended to have more descendants (more children who survived to have children themselves), and females who behaved that way (or those ways) also had more children who survived to have children of their own. Much of the reasoning on these matters is based in the fact that, in humans, females cannot have more than a small number of children, given the underlying biology. We humans are born far from able to cope with life, and require a long period of maturation before we can. We share some of this extended infancy with some other species (such as chimpanzees and orangutans) and, to some extent, they show similar sex linked behavioral differences. Males, on the other hand, are capable of having a great many children. But, because of the long term helpless infancy period, together with typical human female awkwardness during much of pregnancy, it seems likely that males who stayed with the female increased the chances that children (half of whose genes came from him) were more likely to survive to child-bearing age. This pattern may also account for male jealousy (only if the female is sexually exclusive can he be sure the child is his) and female interest in male resource control. If he's rich (however rich is measured in a society), he will likely be able to increase the chance that her children will survive to have children of their own. Some of these suggestions (hypotheses) are subject to test in humans and some other species; the evolutionary approach has illuminated some hitherto opaque behaviors.\n\nThese matters are very near to the center of much conflict in traditional (and some other not so traditional) societies, many of whose citizens are made uneasy by new and different behaviors and by research which either 'endorses' some of those behaviors or 'undermines' some of their existing or traditional behaviors. In fact, the science is still in its infancy, and those who claim it endorses this or that don't understand it, and those who fear the science would be better advised to concentrate on policy makers of various kinds who don't understand the nature of science, nor much of this emerging scien
108053
Sure, \ntry www.genetic-programming.com It's Dr Koza's page.... you'll need some time to find the information.