Darius11 12 #1 October 22, 2009 For the people who do believe in evolution and science. I hope that’s most of us. What is our effect on natural selection for our own species? It is obvious that when it comes to our species we interfere with evolution. What effects will this have? Are we seeing these effects already? Which traits get passed on more? The cold reality of nature is that the weak would die. What is weak in the terms of our life today? What will become of us?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #2 October 22, 2009 Quote For the people who do believe in evolution and science. I hope that’s most of us. What is our effect on natural selection for our own species? It is obvious that when it comes to our species we interfere with evolution. What effects will this have? Are we seeing these effects already? Which traits get passed on more? The cold reality of nature is that the weak would die. What is weak in the terms of our life today? What will become of us? I don't think we "interfere" with evolution, it's just that some of us seem to think we have reached a point where it doesn't apply to us. Mainly because (I think) we live in a very benign world. One that we have a lot of control over, where a lot (but not all) of the threats to life and limb have been negated. If an event occurs that forces natural selection, then the weak will die quickly. The strong will survive. "Weak" and "Strong" can mean all sorts of things. Intellect, learned skills, possession of certain tools and preparedness would all contribute to "strength". Look at any recent natural disaster. Hurricane Katrina comes to mind. Some people were prepared, and did ok, even in the absence of "normal" things - power, water, security as provided by society. Others depended on the government for their survival and didn't do so well. And as always, some of the strong died and some of the weak survived due to luck."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdshit 0 #3 October 22, 2009 ~~ donning my fireproof jacket ~~ Natural selection only works if your defect prevents you from breeding and passing down your genes. We cure people of diseases that should kill them. We allow tards to breed. We have hearing aids that (in prehistoric times) would prevent one from being snuck up on my a saber tooth tiger. No hearing aids = a lot of old people being soylent green. We have lasik and glasses for preventing saber tooth tigers sneaking up on us. No eye correction = lots of blurry vision people running around getting eaten or falling from cliffs. If we have a compound fracture, we have orthopedic surgeons that fix that stuff for us instead of having the limb get gangrene. We have dentists which can repair teeth instead of letting them go septic and killing us. We have technology that ensures our food is always 99% bacteria free, thereby eliminating the need for a natural immunity to bacteria, thereby allowing a lot of weak stomached people to live when they would have died as children. This also applies to clean water. In third world countries, dirty water is a top killer of children. Although, through natural selection, the same children have a natural immunity to hundreds of other bacteria. It's likely that many many children died 50,000 years ago due to bacteria and viruses that children today are immune to. That's how natural selection works. In some parts of Africa, the people are immune to sickle cell anemia because of natural selection. Sickle cell anemia is a predominately black disease.. Natural selection doesn't occur in a technological world the same way is in the wild. We build all sorts of tools to keep the weaker alive so they can live long enough to pass down their genes. I think that the only solution to this inherent weakness that technology provides us with is through eugenics. Genetically engineering children with better minds, better immunities, better strength, etc, is all possible. By simply turning off the genes that give us cancer, heart disease, bad eyesight, bald heads, weak joints, etc we can have children that live better lives, free from sickness and unnecessary disease. my $0.02 worth ~ Flame away ~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Misternatural 0 #4 October 22, 2009 I agree with your line of thinking except natural selection occurs in a medically advanced world when non reproducing individuals don't have access to health care- ie. children mostly.Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires. D S #3.1415 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #5 October 22, 2009 Quote ~~ donning my fireproof jacket ~~ Natural selection only works if your defect prevents you from breeding and passing down your genes. We cure people of diseases that should kill them. We allow tards to breed. We have hearing aids that (in prehistoric times) would prevent one from being snuck up on my a saber tooth tiger. No hearing aids = a lot of old people being soylent green. We have lasik and glasses for preventing saber tooth tigers sneaking up on us. No eye correction = lots of blurry vision people running around getting eaten or falling from cliffs. If we have a compound fracture, we have orthopedic surgeons that fix that stuff for us instead of having the limb get gangrene. We have dentists which can repair teeth instead of letting them go septic and killing us. We have technology that ensures our food is always 99% bacteria free, thereby eliminating the need for a natural immunity to bacteria, thereby allowing a lot of weak stomached people to live when they would have died as children. This also applies to clean water. In third world countries, dirty water is a top killer of children. Although, through natural selection, the same children have a natural immunity to hundreds of other bacteria. It's likely that many many children died 50,000 years ago due to bacteria and viruses that children today are immune to. That's how natural selection works. In some parts of Africa, the people [with sickle cell trait] are immune to sickle cell anemia [have a resistance to malaria] because of natural selection. Sickle cell anemia is a predominately black disease.. Natural selection doesn't occur in a technological world the same way is in the wild. We build all sorts of tools to keep the weaker alive so they can live long enough to pass down their genes. I think that the only solution to this inherent weakness that technology provides us with is through eugenics. Genetically engineering children with better minds, better immunities, better strength, etc, is all possible. By simply turning off the genes that give us cancer, heart disease, bad eyesight, bald heads, weak joints, etc we can have children that live better lives, free from sickness and unnecessary disease. my $0.02 worth ~ Flame away ~ Good post. (I only made one minor correction - no flame) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #6 October 22, 2009 Quote ~~ donning my fireproof jacket ~~ Natural selection only works if your defect prevents you from breeding and passing down your genes. In some parts of Africa, the people are immune to sickle cell anemia because of natural selection. Sickle cell anemia is a predominately black disease.. ~ Not flaming, but this is a really good example of how evolution can go wrong and end up in a dead end. People in Africa aren't immune to Sickle Cell. What happens is that those with Sickle Cell are less suceptible to malaria (I think. It might be a different disease) So the Sickle Cell kills them slower than the malaria. Is the cure worse than the disease? Not if it allows you to breed and pass on the "resistance" to malaria. And I should have put this in my first reply, but... A lot of people tend to forget how slow evolution is. It can sometimes move very quickly when extreme climate changes force rapid adaptation. But remember, the first "modern" humans appeared a couple million years ago. It might be a couple more million before any significant changes occur. Or it might be sooner if something forces the "adapt or die" situation. Edit to add: Dr K beat me to it, but at least I got the disease right"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #7 October 22, 2009 Quote For the people who do believe in evolution and science. I hope that’s most of us. What is our effect on natural selection for our own species? It is obvious that when it comes to our species we interfere with evolution. What effects will this have? Are we seeing these effects already? Which traits get passed on more? The cold reality of nature is that the weak would die. What is weak in the terms of our life today? What will become of us? Natural selection is something the left interferes with the most. all entitlement programs interfere with natural selection. We promote a weak society when we have people that no longer produce for themselves because they are suplied by those that carry the load. When those that receive out number those that produce we fail as a country and a race. We are aproaching this point and when and if it happens the suffering will be larger than anything that anyone could imagine. It has been proven for all of us to see in the world today, everytime a species of plant or animal is set free without a controlling factor, that plant or animal flourishes until it runs out of food, but what is left behind is devestation. a visit to the gallapagos will show this without even looking hard. the same goes for what is happening to us in the US today, when the entitlement programs become more than the country can handle the country will collapse and the result of that will be something none of us can really envision. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #8 October 22, 2009 Quote For the people who do believe in evolution and science. I hope that’s most of us. What is our effect on natural selection for our own species? It is obvious that when it comes to our species we interfere with evolution. What effects will this have? Are we seeing these effects already? Which traits get passed on more? The cold reality of nature is that the weak would die. What is weak in the terms of our life today? What will become of us? Bill Gates is the new alpha male....nuff said....we've bastardized evolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #9 October 22, 2009 I pretty much agree with what you say. Appears we have 2 major factors that have altered the naturalness (?) of selection. 1 - We have harnessed, or engineered our way out of a lot of risks. (Though a person could make an arguement for that being a perfectly natural process). 2 - We have put a social order in place that assists those at risk. (Certainly it is not the worldwide compassionate utopia some see as a goal, but it is far closer to that than everybody-for-themselves anarchy)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdshit 0 #10 October 22, 2009 Quote Good post. (I only made one minor correction - no flame) My bad, I guess I could do some research instead of trying to remember a national geographic article I read 15 years ago... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #11 October 22, 2009 I agree with what you’re saying. I often have thought I would be dead because I have glasses. But a lot of people with Glasses have contributed to the advance meant of our spices. So is the way we view evolution different for regular and intelligent animals? Or is intelligence the ultimate perversion of nature?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #12 October 22, 2009 I've posted this before, but I believe evolution is still taking place on humans, just at the level of societies instead of individuals. Individuals get ahead or fall behind at the whim of the society they live in, which isn't guaranteed to promote traits beneficial to the individual absent of that society. Societies rise and fall and are usually modeled in the image of or in opposition to societies past. The number of truly discrete societies at this point is very low, however, and the fragility of the non-diverse "ecosphere" becomes apparent in situations like the crises of the cold war. /edited to add the italic clarification. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #13 October 22, 2009 QuoteNatural selection only works if your defect prevents you from breeding and passing down your genes. But by being removed from the gene pool you have been selected and will no longer reproduce, so even if you did formerly reproduce and your undesireable genes passed on, you will no longer spread your undesireable genes so NS does work for a while until you are removed. So that statement seems a little broad to me. It is possibel to have an undesireable gene and pass iton before selection, but NS eventually works, even if later than it should. QuoteWe cure people of diseases that should kill them. What if the illness was caused by the ill gene? Then we've artificially overridden NS and it hasn't worked and won't work if that person reproduces. QuoteWe allow tards to breed. When you govern reproduction the "natural" in NS is invalidated. QuoteWe have hearing aids that (in prehistoric times) would prevent one from being snuck up on my a saber tooth tiger. No hearing aids = a lot of old people being soylent green. True, when you artificailly modify humans you lose teh "natural." At the same time, virtually all of the elders to which you refer don't pass on their genes anyway, so this is moot. QuoteWe have lasik and glasses for preventing saber tooth tigers sneaking up on us. No eye correction = lots of blurry vision people running around getting eaten or falling from cliffs. Pretty much same as above. QuoteIf we have a compound fracture, we have orthopedic surgeons that fix that stuff for us instead of having the limb get gangrene. Injuries caused by accident aren't really part of natural selection, are they? Unless a specific member of that species was genetically prone to risk. QuoteWe have dentists which can repair teeth instead of letting them go septic and killing us. Did they go septic due to genetic reasons or accident? QuoteWe have technology that ensures our food is always 99% bacteria free, thereby eliminating the need for a natural immunity to bacteria, thereby allowing a lot of weak stomached people to live when they would have died as children. Sure, we interfere with NS that way. QuoteThis also applies to clean water. In third world countries, dirty water is a top killer of children. Although, through natural selection, the same children have a natural immunity to hundreds of other bacteria. It's likely that many many children died 50,000 years ago due to bacteria and viruses that children today are immune to. That's how natural selection works. Well, NS selection would reduce world population severely. We're such a smart species that we want to limit the popualation of others species yet let opurs run free to over-produce. QuoteIn some parts of Africa, the people are immune to sickle cell anemia because of natural selection. Sickle cell anemia is a predominately black disease.. IOW's, if we let it run its course, it would eventually be gone for good? QuoteNatural selection doesn't occur in a technological world the same way is in the wild. We build all sorts of tools to keep the weaker alive so they can live long enough to pass down their genes. YES! QuoteBy simply turning off the genes that give us cancer, heart disease, bad eyesight, bald heads, weak joints, etc we can have children that live better lives, free from sickness and unnecessary disease. Or, couldn't we just refuse all people medical care and let nature decide? We've tried that with the lower 50% in the US, Republicans want the experiment to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdshit 0 #14 October 22, 2009 Too tired to respond to all that... yes, no, no, yes, maybe, your all wrong, etc. Just pretend I came back with something witty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 October 22, 2009 Quote Natural selection is something the left interferes with the most. all entitlement programs interfere with natural selection. That's what I wrote simultaneously when stated that Republicans want the NS experiment for the lower 50%. I see we agree. The left want to help people, you and the right want NS to eliminate them. Quote It has been proven for all of us to see in the world today, everytime a species of plant or animal is set free without a controlling factor, that plant or animal flourishes until it runs out of food, but what is left behind is devestation. That's sheer brilliance. I wonder if we, as humans have helped all those extincted species we've helped control? And what plants do we set free? Run, little plant - be free . The truth is that when humans fuck with it it goes to hell. We're one of the newest species here and the most caustic. How did they ever makee it w/o us? Research "boom and bust cycle" to see how we 'help' our fellow earth species out. Quote the same goes for what is happening to us in the US today, when the entitlement programs become more than the country can handle the country will collapse and the result of that will be something none of us can really envision. Oh, so Socialist Europe is doing poorly? How about Communist China; how's their NS working out? They have 4 times the people and are the most economically successful currently. Oops, what's that noise? Is it the air being let out of your brilliant theories? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #16 October 22, 2009 QuoteI agree with what you’re saying. I often have thought I would be dead because I have glasses. But a lot of people with Glasses have contributed to the advance meant of our spices. So is the way we view evolution different for regular and intelligent animals? Or is intelligence the ultimate perversion of nature? But since most people don't need glasses to correct vision until later years when they aren't reproducing, that is statistically irrelevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #17 October 22, 2009 Quote Too tired to respond to all that... yes, no, no, yes, maybe, your all wrong, etc. Just pretend I came back with something witty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,136 #18 October 22, 2009 Interestingly enough, this somewhat-related article is being discussed in Bonfire today. Our intelligence makes us able to overcome what would be natural selection criteria. And our intelligence helps us to deal and think in abstractions. From that comes our ability to forecast, and analyze our feelings. And those lead us to feel sorry for people, and plan so that consequences won't affect us. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #19 October 22, 2009 Our intelligence has allowed us to keep people alive and reproducing who therwise would have died. Physically we are a much weaker mammal than we were even 50 or 100 years ago. Fortunately a lot of advances in technology have been made by the very people who would have died of natural causes if it weren't for modern medicine. So, in effect, we already have altered our own evolution and have done so quite rapidly. We have made ourselves physically weaker and less disease resistant than our ancestors, but intellectually we are further ahead.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #20 October 22, 2009 Quote That's what I wrote simultaneously when stated that Republicans want the NS experiment for the lower 50%. I see we agree. The left want to help people, you and the right want NS to eliminate them. not eliminate people, eliminate lazy nature of the people by making them care for themselves. take away their free ride. Quote Oh, so Socialist Europe is doing poorly? How about Communist China; how's their NS working out? They have 4 times the people and are the most economically successful currently. Oops, what's that noise? Is it the air being let out of your brilliant theories? why don't we ask the dead people in China how well a dictatorship is? china is not natural selection it is selection of a dictator, there is a difference. As far as europe goes, they are being over run by radical Muslims and are slowly loosing their countries to Muslim control. we will see how that turns out all the females are wearing bukas and the men are all nealing and praying to alla.or how many will die in the next war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #21 October 22, 2009 Quote So, in effect, we already have altered our own evolution and have done so quite rapidly. We have made ourselves physically weaker and less disease resistant than our ancestors, but intellectually we are further ahead. So, with all of our new brain power, we have become a weaker race. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #22 October 22, 2009 QuoteBut since most people don't need glasses to correct vision until later years when they aren't reproducing, that is statistically irrelevant. Use of corrective lenses certainly correlates positively with age but if 30-40% of people in their prime* have corrective lenses it's hardly irrelevant. Using technology to nullify the selective effects of a negative trait isn't that interesting though. What's more interesting, imho, would be a situation where it became "cool" to have glasses, or perhaps one in which having glasses became associated (rightly or wrongly) with a positive trait such as intelligence, and became preferred in the selection process. That would be a true "bastardization" of natural selection. * sorry for the old data but I'm lazy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #23 October 22, 2009 "Interfering" with evolution is like a damm interferes with a river. The effect is temporary and often the correction is more stochastic than would be otherwise. The current flu concerns are a case in point. Many of the people who are going to die this winter from H1N1 are people with problems that would have killed them earlier without modern medcine. The effects of society tend to have a profound tendancy to push survival of the fittest onto groups rather than individuals. Large scale fitness to survive events remove large swaths of the gene pool. The invasions of North America and Australia comes to mind (South Americans and Africans seem to have fared a bit better). On the other hand within our society evolution seems to favour uneducated trailer trash and middle class bible thumpers over highly educated, driven professionals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robskydiv 0 #24 October 22, 2009 Quote For the people who do believe in evolution and science. I hope that’s most of us. What is our effect on natural selection for our own species? It is obvious that when it comes to our species we interfere with evolution. What effects will this have? Are we seeing these effects already? Which traits get passed on more? The cold reality of nature is that the weak would die. What is weak in the terms of our life today? What will become of us? If evolution were true, TrophyHusband would instantly grow a tail to help him stay balanced on his new bicycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #25 October 22, 2009 Bonefire!!!!!!! whats that? I can post any thing in there it never gets a response. I don't think I am cool enough for them.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
