YT2095 Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 Nice Plot!, I was after something like to post here ages ago, instead I ended up with a lousey stat! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 I'd prefer to get data from lots of years, and at the very least take a look at the standard deviation. What would be interesting is taking the same data set from Australia or another large Southern hemisphere country - it should be an inverse trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 it's still a very small pattern but the same as the one I gave from holland. It could also be that some people really try to get their new born in the period when it's usually vacation for many people. There could even be local laws influencing these decisions. So there isn't any proof of habitats reasons until there is more data of different places and diff. cultures. even then it won't be proof only very likely it is a certain way. If we could split up the planned and not planned baby's this would help a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 If we could split up the planned and not planned baby's this would help a lot. Absolutely - that is pretty much key to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted August 15, 2004 Share Posted August 15, 2004 What would be interesting is taking the same data set from Australia or another large Southern hemisphere country - it should be an inverse trend. agreed, a 6 month offset in birthrate over the years, although not conclusive, would be an interesting indication of a PERHAPS mating "season". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 A plot of those results shows a trend line that backs up what I said. I'm not completely happy using results from just one year' date=' but there you go. If I can get myself geared up I'll do some proper pop analysis on the numbers. Obviously this is not the same as what we'd call 'mating season' in, say, sheep, but it does indicate that the people who were yammering on about humans being all cosy and special and free from the effects of our habitats are just plain wrong.[/quote'] Show the plot without suppressing the zero on the y axis. Also normalize the numbers; the two highest months have 31 days (and the lowest had 28). When your fluctuations are on the order of 10%, that extra 3.3% for the extra day matters a bit. I also think you draw a different conclusion because you are defining 'mating season' a little differently than I am. I think that effects from our habitats is environmental, and 'mating season' is physiological (e.g. sex drive and ability to conceive). Not having as much sex because it's too damn hot in July is environmental. Installing AC for the sheep still isn't going to get them to mate out of seson, AFAIK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Could be that we dont need mating seasons to survive just like we dont need to migrate to the south in winter to survive anymore(if your in the US); and are cognitive ability is superior to the other animals, who act mostly by instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Show the plot without suppressing the zero on the y axis. That won't change the actual degree of Eulerian variance, will it? The plot I posted was just to show that the trend I predicted appears in a data set that was randomly selected by someone else. It should not be seen as an argument to be countered. Also normalize the numbers; the two highest months have 31 days (and the lowest had 28). When your fluctuations are on the order of 10%, that extra 3.3% for the extra day matters a bit. I suspect normalizing would be unhelpful in this case. It would be preferable to get hold of the same data by day instead of by month (as well as data for toher years and [known] locations, as I mentioned earlier.) I also think you draw a different conclusion because you are defining 'mating season' a little differently than I am. I think that effects from our habitats is environmental, and 'mating season' is physiological (e.g. sex drive and ability to conceive). Not having as much sex because it's too damn hot in July is environmental. Installing AC for the sheep still isn't going to get them to mate out of seson, AFAIK. What? Explain to me how the effects of a habitat, on a species that is adapted specifically for survival and dispersal in that habitat, don't shape the life history, physiology and behaviour of that species? In humans main issue with interpreting individual behaviour and population biology is that root causes are clouded by our incovenient habit of "wanting" things. The only reason this thread exists is because the popular view taken by humans is that we are somehow separated from the rules of a biological world, which is mainly untrue. Virtually everything humans do is biologically governed. Even abstract concepts such as economy and politics derive directly from systemic principles that appeared a couple of billion years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 The only reason this thread exists is because the popular view taken by humans is that we are somehow separated from the rules of a biological world, which is mainly untrue. Virtually everything humans do is biologically governed. Even abstract concepts such as economy and politics derive directly from systemic principles that appeared a couple of billion years ago. And I don't disagree with that. But what I'm saying is that while situations such as "in the winter, it's dark yet we're still awake, so let's have sex" and my previous example are biologically driven, they are not physiologically driven. Women are able to conceive year-round. Men want sex basically all the time. We don't grow antlers and rut, and women show no special changes that signify they are in estrus that set us off (what signs are present are always present). It's all part of the reproductive strategy that we adopted. Nothing in that argument separates us from the rules of biology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 OK, righty-ho then. So do we agree that having a lot more data would be a nice place to start from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leison Posted August 16, 2004 Author Share Posted August 16, 2004 hey sayonara . all of the people here agree that we have "no mating season/period" but why have you been sticking to your point? i dont think we need to compare all those data and principles of biology.we are human and we are confused that whether we have or not mating season.(matter of shame) hey man a simple question --can u distinguish the lady in heat.certainly not.u can't go smelling in uncivilize manner. but all the other animals can distinguish that's why they have mating season data also shows that we have no mating season. if u collect the birth datas of any other animal u'll find 100% birth in only 1 month (specific wks) .not like us having births in all the months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 hey sayonara . all of the people here agree that we have "no mating season/period" but why have you been sticking to your point? No offence intended to any other involved parties, but this is a discussion between a physicist, a chemist, an engineer and a couple of school kids. One might reasonably expect the biology graduate to have a better understanding of population dynamics. In fact this discussion was so banal earlier the only other biologist to comment only bothered to point out the most obvious fact in the universe (that humans are animals), and that was because - as I have commented - the direction the debate was taking indicated a belief that we weren't subject to the forces that govern animal life. i dont think we need to compare all those data and principles of biology. Well then how the **** (pardon my language) do you plan on demonstrating the presence or absence of a biological influence? we are human and we are confused that whether we have or not mating season.(matter of shame) Shame doesn't come into it. Anywhere. hey man a simple question --can u distinguish the lady in heat.certainly not.u can't go smelling in uncivilize manner. but all the other animals can distinguish that's why they have mating season Would you care to explain how that applies to, oh, say salmon? Or how about birds? What about insects? Would you care to point me in the direction of conclusive, peer-reviewed studies that rule out any such interactions between male and female humans? Would you care to explain why - with our ability to communicate in great detail - you would limit your argument to only include "smelling"? data also shows that we have no mating season. Are you blind? That is what I am trying to establish, using data. I think we're all pretty much agreed there is no mating season in humans in the same way that there is in many (read: not "all") other animals. The point of all this is to establish the cause of the known bias in the seasonal distribution of human births. if u collect the birth datas of any other animal u'll find 100% birth in only 1 month (specific wks) .not like us having births in all the months. Bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 OK' date=' righty-ho then. So do we agree that having a lot more data would be a nice place to start from?[/quote'] Sure. Also a definition of mating season, since I think any disagreement we might have stems from whether seasonal fluctuation/bias and mating season are the same thing. I think they are not. ...this is a discussion between a physicist, a chemist, an engineer and a couple of school kids. And if we all walked into a bar, this would be in the "jokes" thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Sure. Also a definition of mating season, since I think any disagreement we might have stems from whether seasonal fluctuation/bias and mating season are the same thing. I think they are not. I would consider "mating season" to be the period of time in which more than half of the mating takes place. Before anyone goes off on a "that's too simple" crusade, understand that the term will apply differently to different species (for any definition we choose) because of the differing life histories. A univoltine (one generation per year) insect species, for instance, will not have a mating season that can be compared easily with non-univoltine species. And if we all walked into a bar, this would be in the "jokes" thread... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 I would consider "mating season" to be the period of time in which more than half of the mating takes place. Before anyone goes off on a "that's too simple" crusade' date=' understand that the term will apply differently to different species (for any definition we choose) because of the differing life histories. A univoltine (one generation per year) insect species, for instance, will not have a mating season that can be compared easily with non-univoltine species. [/quote'] I thinks that's setting the bar incredibly low. 50.00...001% of mating in 6 mos would qualify. And then any statistical fluctuation on top of that could switch what is defined as the mating season, with no underlying change in behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 I thinks that's setting the bar incredibly low. 50.00...001% of mating in 6 mos would qualify. And then any statistical fluctuation on top of that could switch what is defined as the mating season, with no underlying change in behavior. Why is that setting the bar low? Where do you think the bar should be, and more specifically, why? Whether the mating period is 10 months or two days should not matter. That's kind of the point I am trying to get across here - that the use of the word "season" in mating season is an unfortunate choice. Ideally you would analyse as much data as possible, to remove or reduce the effect of fluctuations - like you would with any other observation involving stats. I don't see why that should be a special problem in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Why is that setting the bar low? Where do you think the bar should be' date=' and more specifically, why? Whether the mating period is 10 months or two days should not matter. That's kind of the point I am trying to get across here - that the use of the word "season" in mating season is an unfortunate choice. Ideally you would analyse as much data as possible, to remove or reduce the effect of fluctuations - like you would with any other observation involving stats. I don't see why that should be a special problem in this case.[/quote'] Under your definition you couldn't have a 10-month mating season. If 50% happened in 10 months, then the other 50% happens in two months. That two months would be the mating season. There would always be a mating season, by your definition, so it begs the question. If there was truly a mating season, then I'd expect a gaussian distribution of births - there would be some randomness in when the mating/conception happened and some randomness in gestation period. If the birth rate shown no such distribution, I think you have to conclude that there is no mating season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 17, 2004 Share Posted August 17, 2004 Under your definition you couldn't have a 10-month mating season. If 50% happened in 10 months, then the other 50% happens in two months. That two months would be the mating season. There would always be a mating season, by your definition, so it begs the question. Ah. Perhaps 50% density would have been better. It only begs the question if we are using the retarded definition of mating season. If there was truly a mating season, then I'd expect a gaussian distribution of births - there would be some randomness in when the mating/conception happened and some randomness in gestation period. If the birth rate shown no such distribution, I think you have to conclude that there is no mating season. Again, it depends on the life history of the species. You can't apply the same definition of mating season to humans as you would to, say, wasps - as such you certainly can't expect the same distribution pattern. Why Gaussian, by the way? Specifically I mean. You chose it so you must have applied reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leison Posted August 18, 2004 Author Share Posted August 18, 2004 ok Mr. biologist "if u collect the birth datas of any other animal u'll find 100% birth in only 1 month (specific wks) .not like us having births in all the months. " could u plez explain me this how do u link above statement to human mating season . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 I don't - and there's no reason why I should, what with it being your statement. If anyone is going to link it to something relevant in a meaningful way, it should be you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted August 18, 2004 Share Posted August 18, 2004 Ah. Perhaps 50% density would have been better. I'm not sure what you mean by 50% density. Again' date=' it depends on the life history of the species. You can't apply the same definition of mating season to humans as you would to, say, wasps - as such you certainly can't expect the same distribution pattern. Why Gaussian, by the way? Specifically I mean. You chose it so you must have applied reasoning.[/quote'] You had already clarified that we can't apply this to all species, and I agree. Whatever the definition, it's going to be limited to species that don't mature and reproduce in the same year they are born, and can survive and reproduce for several years. I think that there should be a gaussian component because of the randomness in some of the factors, as I stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now