Human Evolution

HazieDaVampire · March 15, 2003, 19:53

Anybody think the evolution of the human race will slow down even more now.

Since evolution rides on survival of the fittest, almost all of us will survive regardless of our genetics so the evolution of humans will just be a scramble of the genes that have so far survived.

Inverse Icarus · March 15, 2003, 20:52

exactly. we save the weak. machines evolve to environments for us. we wont change for a while.

HazieDaVampire · March 15, 2003, 20:55

Only change i can see possible is the dominent genes, such as brown hair and brown eyes.

Blonde people will die out, but you'll probubly see some fanatics who create pure breads very much like what hitler wanted to happen.

And your right, whenever a situtation changes, we don't take a few years so those of us who can cope survive and those who cant die, we save everybody and create somthing to cope for us.

loinburger · March 15, 2003, 21:02

Why would blond people die out? Blond genes are recessive, so there's still a chance that two people with brown hair (if their genes are Bb Bb) will produce a blond child. It's not as though people with negative RH blood factors have all died out, and I can assure you that my parents (both RH positive) did not marry for the sole purpose of producing a child with a negative RH factor, and in fact they were pretty surprised to discover that I am RH negative.

Regardless, it's a bit soon to be claiming that human evolution has ended. Myopia may not be as likely to kill people anymore (or select against people), but the fact that one genetic variation (or even many genetic variations) no longer play(s) a role in selection is hardly proof that all genetic variations no longer play a role in selection. People who have bipolar disorder are more likely to commit suicide than those who are not, therefore the genes involved in the disorder are still being selected against. People with congenital heart defects are more likely to die young than those lacking such defects, therefore the genes producing these defects are still being selected against. Etc.

Datajack Franit · March 15, 2003, 21:24

I guess future generations won't have to care about hair color as most of them will be bald

DAVOUT · March 15, 2003, 21:26

And new deseases have also an influence on evolution. It has been found that in Zaire, a few percentage of the prostitute were naturally immune to Aids; if the epidemic is not medically stopped, the population will be reduced to the immunes who will become the ancestors of the totale future population.

Asher · March 15, 2003, 21:26

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
exactly. we save the weak.

Sounds like an argument against socialism to me.

DAVOUT · March 15, 2003, 21:32

Considering the time scale of evolution, we can save the weaks without influencing evolution. On the contrary, catastrophic events can find in the so-called weaks some genes more adapted to a new environment that the genes considered healthy to-day.

Urban Ranger · March 15, 2003, 22:19

Has any one of you considered that "saving the weak" is an evolved trait?

Kramerman · March 15, 2003, 22:21

is ther a source about those prostitues who are natrually immune to HIV? I would think such people would be under extremely scrutinous examination in order to use them to find a cure.

Kman

johncmcleod · March 15, 2003, 22:26

You never know. Some genetic mutation might occur that everyone thinks is the best and that trait could become widespread as the people with that trait will get married and have kids quick. I was the thinking about this one person I know's thoughts the other day. The women that were more, uh, let's say "submissive" would've have reproduced earlier and more frequently than those who weren't. So isn't our population mainly descendents from the more submissive ladies?

Urban Ranger · March 15, 2003, 22:28

They have found this one gene, Delta32, that renders people immune to the HIV virus. I am not sure about the African prostitutes.

DAVOUT · March 15, 2003, 22:33

I red it more than one year ago in a scientific review, but I dont remember which one. But you are right, once identified they are followed. I presume that it must be quite difficult to build a research project based on immunity, and also considering the local conditions.

DAVOUT · March 15, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Has any one of you considered that "saving the weak" is an evolved trait?

It could be an evolved trait only if it helps the perpetuation of our genes. If saving the weaks is resulting from a spiritual conception of the good, it could not be an evolved trait.

Urban Ranger · March 15, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
It could be an evolved trait only if it helps the perpetuation of our genes. If saving the weaks is resulting from a spiritual conception of the good, it could not be an evolved trait.

Saving the weak helps to preserve the species as a whole. The most successful animals (not counting hive insects) that live in groups/packs tend to save the weak.

Kramerman · March 15, 2003, 23:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Saving the weak helps to preserve the species as a whole. The most successful animals (not counting hive insects) that live in groups/packs tend to save the weak.

Not really, the weak (weak/sick/old) are just used so that the preditors get them and the rest of the herd can get away. They arent really protected, tho they probably do have a slightly higher chance of survival in a scollective than they would alone.

I odnt know how this works for pack preditors tho

Urban Ranger · March 15, 2003, 23:12

Check out the African Wild Dogs.

St Leo · March 16, 2003, 00:39

Fittest != Strongest

We are merely changing the definition of the fittest.

Nubclear · March 16, 2003, 00:43

Once has to consider that Physical Evolution is not the only evolution......

BustaMike · March 16, 2003, 03:39

Survival of the Fittest is only one aspect of evolution. There are some good arguments that claim evolution as a whole is largely based on social interaction in addition to survival of the fittest. Humanity may have stopped evolving physically or maybe not. I read somewhere that the average human tooth size has steadily declined over the past few thousands of years. I dunno what that means for evolution, but it does show change. And all physical evolution aside, there is definately constant human social evolution.

And lets not forget genetic engineering. Who knows what crazy things might come from that in the future? Kind of a self imposed evolution...

Dis · March 16, 2003, 04:55

and when do we lose our pinky toe dammit!

damn thing just gets stubbed on things.

HazieDaVampire · March 16, 2003, 05:34

Arn't the Christians preventing us from geneticly engineering,
They're also stopping us doing research into stem cells which could cure cancer and Altcimers(sp?).

And the quick death of people who have genes that kill them isn't going to make much difference, you'll just see more of us staying alive.

DuncanK · March 16, 2003, 05:41

Social systems evolve. Cooperation is more efficient than competition so the human species will no longer evolve.

I don't see any need for genetically engineered humans.

HazieDaVampire · March 16, 2003, 05:44

Ever seen Dark Angle? Or played on Dues Ex?
They make some damn good soldiers.

And we could create people who don't need as much oxygen, so they can travel further into space.

DuncanK · March 16, 2003, 05:49

I don't think the benefits would be worth it. There maybe some of it going on in some countries, but it wont be wide spread.

curtsibling · March 16, 2003, 12:02

I think the benefits of genetic engineering aimed at stopping Cancer or AIDS disease are worth the costs.

Christians may hate genetic engineering, but my late granmother was a very devout christian woman,
and I noticed god did not spare her any suffering or ultimately save her from cancer that spread to her brain.

To be fair our 'current' Science didn't either.
Science and helping of human suffering is held in abeyance because of people's draconian fears of progress, based on religious brainwashing...

We could solve many problems, if we could actually grow up as a race.
I will stick with science, thank you.

HazieDaVampire · March 16, 2003, 12:04

Amen brother. lol

St Leo · March 16, 2003, 13:07

It could be an evolved trait only if it helps the perpetuation of our genes. If saving the weaks is resulting from a spiritual conception of the good, it could not be an evolved trait.

It didn't. The spiritual conception of good was a lame excuse to rationalise the saving of the weak.

Most individuals within a species have roughly the same genetic makeup. There are no truly weak individuals; saving the weak works on a quid pro quo basis.

HazieDaVampire · March 16, 2003, 13:12

of course their are genes that make people weak.

Albinos are an extreme one.

If you got rid of everything that businesses provide us with and put us all back in the stoneage with no rules to the game, a few of us will survive to pass on our genes.

In the modern world we all survive, our chance at passing on our genes is now no longer the fact we have survived, but the way we look and our personalitys.

Zero · March 16, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire

In the modern world we all survive, our chance at passing on our genes is now no longer the fact we have survived, but the way we look and our personalitys.

So then there still is sexual selection. A male who is unable to attract a female will not pass on his genes.