Does man kind destroy himself by changing his own evolutionary process?

[mooeypoo]

Well, we all know we took over the world.

We created factories that throw loads of smoke and chemicals into the atmosphere, we use cars, we watch television, we speak on cellphones and we are generally surrounded by electromagnetic radiation that is usually not found in nature.

 

Good or bad, one thing is certain: We are changing our own evolutionary process.

 

Even the fact we go with shoes is changing us. When we click a computer and sit on a comfortable chair - it's all changing the "natural" way of the evolution.

 

We might think thats awsome and great and natural - but we should also remember we don't yet know all about our OWN BODIES - to know what those changes will affect not only ourselves but the entire planet in terms of evolution and nature in general.

 

My question is this:

 

Do you think nature will regain balance and our own changes in the evolutionary process will ultimately come to bite us in the ass - or do you think this is actually the best way of human kind to survive.. ? Have we taken the term "Survival of the fittest" a bit too far?

 

~mooeypoo

[Pinch Paxton]

I think that we change the human evolution by building robots that take over the world. That may sound like Sci-fi but it is easy for robots to destroy mankind with germ warfare.

 

Pincho.

[mooeypoo]

Good point.

I agree, we seem to build weapons that will aventually kill us - but I was actually meaning more towards the idea of mankind changing his physiology -- through sitting near computers, driving cars instead of walking, breathing polluted air, cooking meals in microwaves, cutting off our "Green Lungs" - the rainforests and so on.

 

Those all change the human physiology and aventually his evolutionary process that "Nature meant".. if that makes sense.

 

The question is do you think we'll "Get over it" despite it's mostly EXTREMELY against the balance of nature - or do you think nature will have the upper hand, and we'll end up destroying ourselves when the natural order of balance will come biting us in the ass?

 

~mooey

[iglak]

i think one day, far in the future, it WILL come back and bite us in the *AHEM*. and when that day comes, only those capable of understanding martial arts (not necessarily using) will live.

[ramanan]

My personal opinion is that there is no challenge against the nature .

 

if u talk of evolution u r talking about genetic material and how the nature (climate ,environment everything) is playing with that element.nature knew exactly of what it is doing.

 

but given that element to us we think differently. we are thinking of doubling our life span .we already had tried and doubled drosophila's life span. stepwise this experiment wud cum to humans as well.

on the otherhand wars weapons. we may seem to destroy ourselves.But no

If anything dramatic change occurs to our earth we may readily evolve to sustain or be destroyed for that matter which will be comparatively a slower evolutionary trait

because our dna obeys nature than we do.

all in all if the nature wants us to be here, we can be here.

if it does not want us to be here we should go and there is no point in arguing whether our behavior affect or effect our evolution. nature selects everything and gives it enhancement.

we should remember that we r on the mercy of it.RIGHT!

this is nothing like philosophical this is real.

[YT2095]

well after MANY debates I`ve had on here with regards to evolution, I`ve become convinced that we don`t evolve in a PROACTIVE way (I used to think we did).

so I figure what would happen would be that the ones that die due to pollutants and mobile fone radiation etc... were not meant to breed. but there will be some that survive quite happily with the smog and radiation, they will then go on to breed and make others that are equaly immune or at least have a higher probability of immunity. so we would actualy evolve THAT way, maybe people that sit at a computer (if it meant life or death) the ones that could type the fastest would live, and so fast typers would rule the planet, it`s ridiculous idea I know, but that would be the mechanism

[mooeypoo]

I've been working like mad the past few days, and just about to go out to another work frenzy for five days, so I didn't have much time reading each post (I will when i get back, promise!!) BUT i just wanted to post something to clarify what I meant by the thread question -

 

I understand what you guys mean by "survival of the fittest" - those who will not survive the changes are probably not meant to survive, that's fine physically but what I meant wasn't an "individual" resistance to the changes. I meant to ask you what do you think the ENTIRE human race would suffer.

 

Those who die from heart desease that is related to pollution (see article here ) might not be resistant enough - but aventually AS AN EVOLUTIONARY process, the rest would probably get different heart biology or physiology so they CAN survive it on the long run.

 

I am also talking about 'small' things like our tiny "pinky" (on the foot) that is becoming smaller and smaller from generation to generation. EVERYTHING affects our evolution on the planet - the question is whether we are making it "unbalanced" and aventually we will suffer greater risks to the HUMAN KIND resistance (not individual groups). There's no question about the fact that *we* are responsible for those changes - we cut the trees that supply oxygen to the atmosphere, we walk with shoes, we stare hours on hours at a computer monitor, we sit on chairs, we drive polluting cars and eat greasy unnatural food.

 

Will the human race survive its "war" against the balance of nauture?

 

Don't forget that those changes don't only affect humanity - but the animal and plant world also. Just like when you bring an animal to extinct a rodent somewhere (When its not its original and natural habitat) you get DIFFERENT and sometimes very hazardous occasions of over-population, and destroy the natural balance - are we going to the same path?

 

I'm less talking about the "short-term" changes, when people might die of heart desease or such - but more of the LONG term where we might end up with tiny hands (due to comp use), huge eyes (monitor?) short-sighted (radiation from monitor and tv?), enourmous and thick lungs (pollution), tiny feet (shoes and the fact we're barely walking) and so on.

 

Hope that was clear.. trying to clarify my question.

 

see ya in a few days.

 

~mooeypoo

[Kedas]

Because we are a part of nature everything we do is then by definition natures plan. So saying we are changing natural evolution is 'naive' & overestimating yourself.

 

Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there.

 

You ask what that goal is?

Maybe letting the entropy rise as fast as possible. etc.

[Sayonara]

What evidence do you have that nature has a goal?

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #9 :

What evidence do you have that nature has a goal?

 

'goal' is probably a bit too strong word more like 'a way of doing'.

[NavajoEverclear]

iglak said in post #4 :

i think one day, far in the future, it WILL come back and bite us in the *AHEM*. and when that day comes, only those capable of understanding martial arts (not necessarily using) will live.

congress repeals the pooply brains act. Human brain installments will be inserted next monday (you'll get a call from your doctor).

BTW i don't really diss you, i'm just high on pollution.

 

International Organization of Elimination of Gene Pool Contaminents switches "KHinfcube22" from "closely monitoring" status to "demanded for termination" urgent warrant for capture of the carrier of these toxic chromosomes is activated.

 

---------- Excuse me, persecution may increase feelings of inferiority thereby continuing immature behavior. There is always hope . . . . . . I hope.

[Kedas]

Have we taken the term "Survival of the fittest" a bit too far?

 

To add on what I already said:

The real question is why do you think that such a no human influance world is normal and this one isn't?

 

on the other hand if people can get addicted to pressing the point button (.....). well, then maybe we did take it to far.

[Sayonara]

Kedas said in post #11 :

'goal' is probably a bit too strong word more like 'a way of doing'.

Well, it was your wording and not mine:

"Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there."

 

You also said nature had "a plan".

 

What's the evidence for this?

[YT2095]

Ok, a question just popped up again about evolution and the sort of things mentioned in here.

although I DO stick to what I wrote in here previouslyly and am more or less convinced now that it`s correct, I wish to know if damage that reoccurs is genetic or what?

here`s my obeservation, I had several injuries as a child to the ) shaped white bit on my finger nails, the bit where it comes out of your finger, and now ever since then, every month or so, I will have a bent/ridge appear in them, it`s as regular as clockwork, and when it gets to the end of my finger (grown out) it`ll look like a claw shape, when it`s totaly gone and been cut off, within a week a new ridge will appear.

Now, is that genetic?

I ask because surely it would just do it all the time and be a total ridge without a month or so gap of being fine, so there is SOME sort of "timer" going on here, what is it?

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #13 :

Well, it was your wording and not mine:

"Nature has a goal(way of doing) and we are the TOOLS/WAYS to get there."

 

You also said nature had "a plan".

 

What's the evidence for this?

- I'm not an exact definition generator so you don't have to overanalyze my sentences.

 

- why 'Plan' I don't believe in an universe that doesn't know it's next point (maybe not detailed)

 

- about evidence: Evidence is the problem of the non believer.

[Sayonara]

You'd be surprised how little that helped.

[Kedas]

Sayonara³ said in post #16 :

You'd be surprised how little that helped.

 

LOL (not surprised at all)

 

wait a few decennia if you want to know those answers

[Kylon]

This might come off slightly offensive but

 

I think we are going to degenerate, unless we develop or find some advanced genetic engineering techniques, I think humans are going to degenerate from an evolutionary stand point.

 

People with genetic conditions that make it impossible to produce certain proteins to live for instance, with medicines(although I am quite happy that we have them and glad to see these people live) people can reproduce that have genetic characteristics that severly impair themselves and the genome.

 

I also think that our culture influences to a tremendous degree who we mate with. The "wierd kid" is most likely NOT TO BREED. Nobody is attracted to the "wierd kid" because, well, he's wierd! But wierd is totally defined by culture. For instance, if you were in a heavily conservative society and you were liberal, you would be wierd. On the other hand if you were in a heavily liberal society and you were heavily conservative, you would be considered wierd. To my knowledge at least 40 % of our personalities are inherited from our parents. That means that it's probably genetic.

 

I have a genetic abnormality known as Asperger's Syndrome. This imparts higher intelligence when it comes to engineering, specialization, problem solving ect But impairs ones social abilities, empathy, co-ordination, sensing motivations and carrys some enhanced sensitivities to certain things(I am super sensitive to sound, loud noises hurt my ears). However, no matter how advanced someone with my condition might be, no matter how much technical prowess someone like me might have, my chances of breeding are slim, if not non-existant. My dad was lucky.

 

In short, if the culture promotes perversity, then perversity is what the gene pool is going to be directed towards. If it is directed towards benevolence, then benevolence is what the gene pool tends to go towards. Thus crappy culture = crappy gene pool.

 

The thing I think that deteriorates the gene pool the most, I am sad to say, is the laziness of the intellectuals. The intellectuals don't reproduce as much, compared to dumb people who reproduce like rabbits.

 

Anyway just a few insights, hope there helpful!

[iglak]

The thing I think that deteriorates the gene pool the most, I am sad to say, is the laziness of the intellectuals. The intellectuals don't reproduce as much, compared to dumb people who reproduce like rabbits.

yes, but it's not just laziness, it's also that intellectuals aren't very outgoing. and in addition to that, a few intellectuals look and act like nerds or geeks, not entirely attractive.

 

another big thing is rape the bottom of the gene pool forcing their way into the next generation. pitiful.

 

"crappy culture = crappy gene pool."

story of the humans.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In theory, it is very hard to "degenerate" using evolution. If I died for some human caused event, and others survived, the next time it happened they probably would live. It might kill us first, but then it would help us.

[Sayonara]

There's no such thing as degeneration through evolution - that's a contradiction in terms.

 

You either adapt, or you fail to adapt. Whether or not an adaptation is a positive factor in selection in the long run is neither here nor there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

My point exactly. We may become stupid over time or make our environment killer to life, but that's not evolution. Every one getting more arms to work faster is.

[mam"MATT"us]

Only attributes that increase the number of times you reproduce, success rate, survival of offspring are evolution. For example there is no evolutionary advantage to living to be 200 if you are for some reason unable to reproduce after say 60.

[Sayonara]

In the first sentence you are talking about Natural Selection, not "evolution". The two are not synonymous.

 

An organism that exceeds its reproductive period is not necessarily useless. Remember that evolution happens to species, not individuals, and an evolving species by definition has to have generations.

 

An organism that lives more than twice its reproductive lifespan again can have plenty to offer its species, whether it be in defence, hunting or -- in a species like ours where information is the main fitness currency -- education. This could have a massive effect on the overall rate of reproduction, and it would doubtless be a major selective advantage for the generational groups with the greatest number of most "experienced" elders.

[YT2095]

just a quick question, the term "Mankind" does that cover neanderthal man or Homo Erectus etc.. or is it just for Homo sapiens?