Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans

Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

aspergian_mutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,510

03 Nov 2005, 10:30 pm

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... ction.html

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

03 Nov 2005, 10:35 pm

All you have to do is drive though your neighborhood to see that natural selection is still running it's course. Unfortunately, laws creating sefety percautions to protect stupid people and social services screw it all up and screw up the gene pool in turn!

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

04 Nov 2005, 1:21 am

So if these 9% of the genes undergoing rapid evolution in humans does this mean that they are not human anymore and have evolved into something else.

So if these 13% of the genes show evidence for negative selection are humans devolving and becoming less human.

So which is are evolve higher, devolving lower, or are we staying humans after all.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

mjs82
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,166

05 Nov 2005, 2:19 am

I am the final result in human evolution.

Don't be TOO dissapointed...

RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

05 Nov 2005, 7:44 am

Sean wrote:

Another compassionate response from a so-called Christian. :roll:

Darwin has a lot to answer for, in my opinion. All this genetic engineering is leading to a dangerous future. The best thing for the world right now is to shut down all research into genetics because it is too dangerous.

As for Natural Selection, the sooner it is stamped out the better.

Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

05 Nov 2005, 8:10 am

RobertN wrote:

Darwin has a lot to answer for, in my opinion.

For what? For solving one of the greatest myseries of our existence?

In any case, selective breeding has been a part of human society since long before Darwin worked out how natural selection worked. Take the caste system in India for instance.

I do agree, though, that the uncomfortable truth that Darwin discovered can be used by some to supposedly justify evil acts.

RobertN wrote:

As for Natural Selection, the sooner it is stamped out the better.

Natural selection is a fact of nature. How is anyone going to stamp it out? That's like trying to stamp out gravity.
Maybe you mean you'd like to stamp out social darwinism?

RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

05 Nov 2005, 10:08 am

In response to the last post:

1) Natural Selection is still a theory, and like all scientific ideas, can be accepted, but can never be proved. In fact, it is impossible to prove anything 100%. See my posts on religion, atheism, and philosophy for more info. :idea:

2) Your analogy about gravity was interesting, but there are numerous ways to counter-act gravity. Aeroplanes for instance!! :lol: . Even more scientific, there are some physicists who claim to be able to make a machine that can "stop" gravity in a small experimental area (not sure how true that is). Also there are the levitating mystics who seem to be operating outside the laws of science altogether. :idea:

3) Just because Natural Selection has been the driver of evolution in the past, doesn't mean it will be significant in the future. Evolution may occur in the future by a different mechanism. :idea:

4) Despite my points above, I do concede that Natural Selection is probably a large (but not the only) force in Nature. However, Social Darwinism can be easily eradicated by a simple change of attitude. :idea:

chamoisee
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,065
Location: Idaho

05 Nov 2005, 10:27 am

Hmmm. How in the world would you have any life form exist in a world where it lived and propagated itself regardless of whether or not the environment was favorable for the continuation of its species? I cannot even imagine......just thinking about it confuses me.

I am less concerned about safety laws (which some idiot could break and thereby hurt a reasonably intelligent person) than with infertility treatments, the drive to have a baby at all costs, no matter how deformed or unsuited for life it might be, and people who have serious genetic defects who have kids anyway, when a few decades ago, the defect would have precluded them from either reproducing or living long enough to reproduce.

I can see that some people really, really want to have a baby, but I do think that in some cases, it is a bad idea and they shoudl be responsible enough to see this and opt to adopt or be childless.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

05 Nov 2005, 10:47 am

kevv729 wrote:

So if these 9% of the genes undergoing rapid evolution in humans does this mean ...

We are still human because we are still capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring. The nature of our society (in a global sense) means that no section of the population is going to get cut off and evolve separately. Species is just a human label to define a distinct population of interbreeding organisms.

kevv729 wrote:

So which is are evolve higher, devolving lower, or are we staying humans after all.

Again, up or down are just human concepts. The real crunch comes when some event causes certain individuals to breed preferentially. That might be climate change, disease or competition with other organisms. If you want to see that in a human context, look up some of the physiological differences between groups of people that have evolved, say, in an area of S American rainforest, and contrast that with those in Arctic regions. Those populations have been isolated for many thousands of years, until recently. Of course they are all related to the same people if you go further back in time, and are now, due to our ability to travel around our world, all part of the same breeding pool again.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

05 Nov 2005, 11:07 am

I'm going to organise a whip-round, RobertN: to buy you and kevv729 some science books for Christmas. I'll put in a fiver; I'm sure a few others will do the same...

RobertN wrote:

2) Your analogy about gravity was interesting, but there are numerous ways to counter-act gravity. Aeroplanes for instance!! :lol:

. Even more scientific, there are some physicists who claim to be able to make a machine that can "stop" gravity in a small experimental area (not sure how true that is). Also there are the levitating mystics who seem to be operating outside the laws of science altogether. :idea:

3) Just because Natural Selection has been the driver of evolution in the past, doesn't mean it will be significant in the future. Evolution may occur in the future by a different mechanism. :idea:

4) Despite my points above, I do concede that Natural Selection is probably a large (but not the only) force in Nature. However, Social Darwinism can be easily eradicated by a simple change of attitude. :idea:

kevv729
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: SOUTH DAKOTA

05 Nov 2005, 12:14 pm

ascan

I truly don't need some science books for Christmas that said.

If these genes 9% are going threw rapid evolution and some genes going threw 13% of negative selection or devolving evolution. Where does this put humanity then rapidly evolving or rapidly devolving I meant as a species (homo whatever we become) what is next for us as humans, or will the two cancel each other out and we stay the same. I know this is to simple of a ideal but where are we heading as a species then. If You look at the numbers it to me shows that we are devolving than evolving.

_________________
Come on My children lets All get Along Okay.

RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

05 Nov 2005, 12:38 pm

Ascan, I do not need your generousity.

Perhaps you should get out of your narrow-minded right-wing cage and open up to other people's opinions. It might do you some good.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

05 Nov 2005, 12:48 pm

RobertN wrote:

Perhaps you should get out of your narrow-minded right-wing cage and open up to other people's opinions. It might do you some good.

Hmmm... pot and kettle time again is it?

RobertN, I've backed up all my opinions here, and elsewhere, with sound, rational argument, to the best of my ability. Can you say the same?

RobertN
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 934
Location: Cambridge, UK

05 Nov 2005, 12:55 pm

ascan wrote:

RobertN wrote:

Perhaps you should get out of your narrow-minded right-wing cage and open up to other people's opinions. It might do you some good.

Hmmm... pot and kettle time again is it?

RobertN, I've backed up all my opinions here, and elsewhere, with sound, rational argument, to the best of my ability. Can you say the same?

Yes, I can say the same. As far as I know, you don't seem to have any opinions except those that directly counter mine. You are just the kind of guy that the right-wing elite love. You follow everything they say without question. Science is just another tool of the right-wing elite.

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

05 Nov 2005, 12:59 pm

kevv729 wrote:

...If You look at the numbers it to me shows that we are devolving than evolving.

The percentages relate to the genes studied only. Moreover, the impact of a particular change would be hard to quantify, so you can't look at it like that.

What they're looking at are subtle changes in genes that can't be accounted for by the random mutations that occur at a known rate. We're not going to suddenly morph into something completely different in a few thousand years! Even if we're still around in 50 000 years we'll still be Homo sapiens, and more likely than not, look very similar, if not identical; though genetically there will have been more noticeable, though still small, changes.

Thagomizer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Sep 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 752
Location: MA

05 Nov 2005, 1:19 pm

Of course natural selection is still at work in our species. Hasn't anyone here ever read the Darwin Awards?

_________________
"And lo, the beast looked upon the face of beauty. And beauty stayed his hand. And from that day on, he was as one dead."

Page 1 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans Post Reply New Topic

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans