Human Evolution

[ecoli]

I disagree.

 

Again, you chose a trait, and for some unexplained reasons you've decided that this trait could be used as a measure of intrinsic moral value. What if I choose that organisms with lower body size have a greater intrinsic moral value ? Why not ? If moral value is based on a trait, how can we choose this trait ?

 

Where's the philosophy forum when we need it

Right on... nothing really has intrinsic value, moral or otherwise. Any type of trait or commodity has value because we says it does.

 

In this case, I think genetic relatedness has a lot to do with it, from an evolutionary perspective.

 

Assuming Bascule really values the pig life more than the unborn child, perhaps its because an unborn child has little value for mating potential?

[SkepticLance]

When we discuss ethics, we are saying bye bye to science. We enter a world of totally subjective, and ever changing decisions. Today's ethic is tomorrows sin.

 

In my totally subjective way, and knowing that there are no right or wrong answers, I declare my personal ethic to be focussed on my own species. For totally subjective and possibly incorrect reasons, I choose to adopt mentality as the defining characteristic to be valued. 'Human' means having a high level of sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and just plain brain power.

 

This means that when I look at the world of non humans, I give greatest importance to those that have high levels of brain power. That is - closest to human in the way that matters most.

 

This is not science, and I can give no evidence for the rightness or otherwise of this approach. It is just my own subjective and emotional decision.

[ecoli]

When we discuss ethics, we are saying bye bye to science. We enter a world of totally subjective, and ever changing decisions. Today's ethic is tomorrows sin.

 

In my totally subjective way, and knowing that there are no right or wrong answers, I declare my personal ethic to be focussed on my own species. For totally subjective and possibly incorrect reasons, I choose to adopt mentality as the defining characteristic to be valued. 'Human' means having a high level of sentience, intelligence, self-awareness, and just plain brain power.

 

This means that when I look at the world of non humans, I give greatest importance to those that have high levels of brain power. That is - closest to human in the way that matters most.

 

This is not science, and I can give no evidence for the rightness or otherwise of this approach. It is just my own subjective and emotional decision.

Ethics isn't science perhaps, but our moral code is most certainly related to our psychology and biology and our sociology and culture.

 

Our biology doesn't completely determine our ethics, but we most certainly don't have to "bye bye" to science when discussing ethics, or the philosophy of ethics. Certainly not on a science forum.

[Mr Skeptic]

Right on... nothing really has intrinsic value, moral or otherwise. Any type of trait or commodity has value because we says it does.

 

I'd venture to say that some things really do have intrinsic value ... usable energy, materials, computational capabilities, etc ... all have great value to all living things, even ones that can't understand what these are. So I'd say they have intrinsic value in some vague sort of way.

[ecoli]

I'd venture to say that some things really do have intrinsic value ... usable energy, materials, computational capabilities, etc ... all have great value to all living things, even ones that can't understand what these are. So I'd say they have intrinsic value in some vague sort of way.

But, in order for even these materials to have intrinsic value, they would have to have value, even if no living things were present. Obviously, this is not the case. If no living thing is there to use a resource, then that resource has no value to any living thing. There is no matter that has any inherent worth, expect for what worth we (or any other organism) assign to it.

[lucaspa]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that "species" memberships are "irrelevant," but it sure does seem an outdated an minimally useful way of looking at modern day genetic understandings.

 

The claim was that species membership was irrelevant to make moral and ethical decisions. It was not directed at "modern day genetic understandings"

 

Yes, in evolution there is the criteria of the "chronospecies". These are 2 species separated by time. H. erectus and H. sapiens is one such example. H. sapiens evolved from H. erectus (or H. ergastor if you are in the Natural History Museum ). However, if there were an isolated population of H. erectus around somewhere, we would be separate species.

 

So yes, we treat members of other species differently (ethics/morals) differently than we treat members of our own. Biologically, we must. Was it unethical for H. sapiens to outcompete both H. neandertals and H. erectus in Asia and drive both species to extinction? Even if there was direct confrontation where a tribe of H. sapiens killed a tribe of either other species? Is it unethical for me to put poison in a fire ant colony in my yard?

 

Yourdad would seem to be arguing that "yes", it is unethical because species membership doesn't matter. I would argue that species membership does matter.

 

As I said, we are soon going to have to face a different issue with, at least, AI programs. Not our species, but are they "people"?

 

When we talk about ethics, we are leaving science and entering subjective decision making. Sure, the discoveries of science can be used to support such subjective decisions.

 

Not completely "subjective", but certainly outside of science. Ecoli notes that biology influences what we consider moral or ethical, but it is not the sole reason for what we consider "ethics". Anyone who has taken a course in ethics knows that ethics starts out with some principles that are taken somewhat a priori and not related to biology.

 

The way I see it, there is a coontinuum of mentality extending from humans to bacteria. At the high end, we have humans and other animals of brain power, such as chimps, dolphins and the African grey parrot. We do not have to accord the other intelligent species full human rights, since (probably) none are as intelligent as humans. However, I see room for a recognition of their greater sentience in a lesser recognition of rights. Some kind of code of rights for greater sentience.

 

For example : they may be given the right to life, and adequate space to move in, if living in captivity. The right to mental stimulation when so captured. etc.

 

This is one way to start approaching the problem. Now we are getting into the realm of "sapience". What is "sapience"? It's where I was going when I talked about sapient aliens and AI programs. Star Trek and other sci-fi books and series have tried to deal with when and how we extend the human concept of rights to these groups.

 

However, if you are giving the right to "life", then why not freedom? Why do you say it's OK to keep them in captivity? I'm not saying we can't do anything because of the slippery slope, I'm just trying to get a feel for where you put the ledges in that slope.

 

Our biology doesn't completely determine our ethics, but we most certainly don't have to "bye bye" to science when discussing ethics, or the philosophy of ethics. Certainly not on a science forum.

 

In the essentials, yes, we do have to wave "bye bye" to science. Science is not a system of ethics. No way. What you are doing is saying that some of our ethical premises are rooted in our biology. That may be true and explain why we set them as premises, but it doesn't help our reasoning from those premises to particular ethical problems: and that is what ethics is about.

 

Notice the Skeptic pointed to "right to life" as an ethical priority. I pointed to "freedom". Neither of those is based in science. No organism has a biological or scientific "right to life" or to "freedom". As just one example, in a predator-prey situation, which has the "right to life", the predator or the prey? Science can't even begin to address that question.

 

Just recognize, Ecoli, that you might try to bring good science to a discussion, but that doesn't make the discussion "scientific".

[Mr Skeptic]

Is it unethical for me to put poison in a fire ant colony in my yard?

 

Yourdad would seem to be arguing that "yes", it is unethical because species membership doesn't matter. I would argue that species membership does matter.

 

I side with yourdadonapogos on this one. If the ants were as intelligent, sentient, etc, as any other (human) person, I think killing them would qualify as murder. Even if they are a separate species. Though I would also say that species membership is also relevant to the same degree that I am biased in favor of my closest kin over more distant kin (those of a different species are extremely distant kin, compared to other humans).

[ydoaPs]

As you are noting, speciation does not happen in a generation. It is a process that covers hundreds/thousands of generations and is a gradual process. What you are talking about is a "chronospecies". If we could take Turkana boy (H. erectus) and bring him forward in time we would find that he could not interbreed and produce fertile offpsring with today's people. He would be a separate species. Where exactly in the sequence of generations did this happen? There is no "exact" spot. If we kept the continuity of the generations then yes, every generation would be able to interbreed with the generation before and after. And yet, H. erectus and H. sapiens are separate species.

Imagine I had a time machine and I brought into our time an ancestor of ours from a million years ago with whom we can successfully breed. We are H Sapiens. This ancestor would then, by your definition, would be H Sapiens. Thus, according to you, they have all the same rights as us because they are of the same species.

 

Now, I use my time machine to bring to our time a descendant of mine with whom it is possible for me to successfully breed. Since I am a H Sapiens, this future descendant with whom I can successfully breed is a H Sapiens. This means, according to you, we treat them how we treat all H Sapiens.

 

Now, my ancestor and my descendant, whom I brought here in my time machine, cannot successfully interbreed. Thus they are not the same species and one or both of them MUST NOT be H Sapiens.

 

Which one is H Sapiens? Who gets the rights and who is a mere beast?

 

I maintain that species membership is not morally relevant.

However, the question remains the criteria for doing so. IMO, chimps do not meet the criteria. Although there is no qualitative mental distinction between chimp mentality and ours, there is a quantitative difference such that IMO chimps should not qualify.

And what criteria are these? There is a qualitative difference between an average H Sapiens and a mentally retarded H Sapiens; does the mentally retarded H Sapiens qualify for person status?

 

 

 

And that is part of the absence of qualitative distinction. Yes, chimps do show a form of morality and the ability to mentalize the mental state of others. But not to the extent that humans do. Nor to do abstract thought to the extent that humans do.

So, you effectively want an "all or nothing" qualification for personhood? Now, which human is the standard for this comparison? Who must one at least match mentally to be counted?

 

 

 

If species membership is irrelevant, then yes, you are advocating treating all species the same. And requiring them to treat us the same way we treat ourselves.

NO! And here is where you either don't understand or are strawmanning. Species membership not being relevant!=all creatures being on equal footing morally. There is a gradient of morally relevant properties and thus a gradient of personhood. Thus there is a gradient of how much ethical consideration one gets. Ethical consideration is based on morally relevant properties of the individual. Species membership is not a morally relevant property. Basing ethical consideration of an individual on species alone(as I said before, species membership can, in some cases, be used as a thumb rule) is nepotism.

 

 

If you consider that the properties of the majority of the members of a species are a "thumbrule", then species membership becomes relevant!

If your ethical decision affects a large population of a single species rather than an individual(or small group) it is permissible to use species membership as a thumbrule basing the ethical consideration of the population on the morally relevant properties of the average healthy member of the species in question. This is NOT the same as saying species membership is a morally relevant property of an individual.

 

According to your argument that "species is irrelevant", a mantis is a person.

NO! If you don't understand, ask specific questions. If you do, then stop strawmanning.

 

Why would you exclude it from being a person?

It not having a brain? It not having morally relevant properties?

 

In the essentials, yes, we do have to wave "bye bye" to science. Science is not a system of ethics. No way.

 

We should NOT ditch science. Most good philosophy is rooted in science. What good is philosophy if it isn't based on reality?

[BumFluff]

Human evolution will continue to occur only in a different series of events. With the advancement of our genetic intelligence we'll be able to advance ourselves physically through our own doing but the evolution of our minds will continue to advance.

 

I've read that our genetic makeup gives us the ability to make Vitamin C internally (As our bodies do with Vitamin K) but that ability is turned off. We have all the structures to allow it but it doesn't function. I suspect this is most likely because the change in diet we had long ago from the mostly meat eating/hunter diet to the agricultural/farming diet. I think that if we continue down the path we're on different parts of our genetics will go through the same thing. They'll be dependant on other kinds of intake (Food, drugs, etc...) to assist us in what our bodies currently do by themselves from birth. I see the future of humanity being dependant on our own tehcnology.

[ecoli]

Human evolution will continue to occur only in a different series of events. With the advancement of our genetic intelligence we'll be able to advance ourselves physically through our own doing but the evolution of our minds will continue to advance.

what is genetic intelligence?

 

I've read that our genetic makeup gives us the ability to make Vitamin C internally (As our bodies do with Vitamin K) but that ability is turned off.

Actually, vitamin K is made by symbiotic bacteria in our gut... we don't synthesize it directly.

 

We have all the structures to allow it but it doesn't function. I suspect this is most likely because the change in diet we had long ago from the mostly meat eating/hunter diet to the agricultural/farming diet.

This is most likely not the case. Several other primate species, that we are related to, also cannot produce Vitamin C (as well as ginuea pigs, but that's a different story). This suggests we lost Vitamin C synthesis machinery sometime after primates became fruitavores, because fruit is an abundant source of vitamin C, so losing the expression of this gene wouldn't confer any real disadvantage (and even an energetic advantage)... meat is not so much a good source of Vitiman C. but it depends on the tissue. Some animal liver contains a good source, but muscle tissue (where most of our meat food comes from) has almost none.

Also, don't confuse the agricultural revolution to mean that we shifted from a meat-based diet to a plant-based one.

 

We descend from animals that most likely, had a primarily plant-based diet. Even in our hunting days, most our food source was probably obtained by foraging and gathering plant material... which is a lot less time-intensive then hunting.

Also, along with the agricultural evolution came animal domestication. The eating of meat from domesticated animals (as opposed to hunting them) is a lot easier, and it is likely that our meat consumption levels actually went up after these social revolutions.

 

 

Be careful with your assumptions... the actual evolutionary evidence directly contracts almost everything you've said here!

It's good that you seem interested in the topic, though.

[SkepticLance]

The other thing that relates to loss of vitamin C manufacturing ability, in addition to the fruit diet mentioned by ecol, is a very low population number. The loss came about because of a mutation in a key gene, that spread to all humans. That spread would not have come as a result of natural selection, since there was no selective advantage. It would have come as a result of genetic drift, which is something that does NOT happen in large populations.

 

Thus, the loss happened at a time when our forebears were very low in population size. We can also conclude that a similar event CANNOT happen today, with 6.5 billion people interbreeding.

[ecoli]

Skeptic lance - I don't know much about the energetic costs associated with Vit. c manufacture, but could this have conferred a slight advantage to non-vit synthesizing individuals, if one member randomly lost it?

 

You're obviously probably right about the genetic drift theory, but perhaps there could have been some natural selection at play as well?

[SkepticLance]

ecoli

 

I cannot really answer your queries. The major theory, based on my reading, suggests there is no selective advantage in the mutation, and so genetic drift is the normal hypothesis. I don't want to be too adamant on this. Anything is possible within the laws of science.

[PhDP]

Skeptic lance - I don't know much about the energetic costs associated with Vit. c manufacture, but could this have conferred a slight advantage to non-vit synthesizing individuals, if one member randomly lost it?

 

Very often, slight advantages mean nothing for evolution. For very small organism with ridiculously large population size (i.e.: bacteria), I could buy the energetic costs argument.

 

But for large organisms like us... no. I can't see how a tiny detail like this could lead to a significiant advantage.

[BumFluff]

what is genetic intelligence?

Sorry Typo. I merely meant intelligence

 

 

This is most likely not the case. Several other primate species, that we are related to, also cannot produce Vitamin C (as well as ginuea pigs, but that's a different story). This suggests we lost Vitamin C synthesis machinery sometime after primates became fruitavores, because fruit is an abundant source of vitamin C, so losing the expression of this gene wouldn't confer any real disadvantage (and even an energetic advantage)... meat is not so much a good source of Vitiman C. but it depends on the tissue. Some animal liver contains a good source, but muscle tissue (where most of our meat food comes from) has almost none.

I stand corrected. However my original point still stands. As we form other ways to consome different types of Vitamins or take care of our bodies in different ways with techniques that our bodies can do naturally our bodies will lose the abilities to do it naturally and we will become dependant on those products that did the same types of things for us that oru bodies did before.

[AC/DC/Carl]

There is so much talk about sexual selection being whats important and that it doesnt matter if we cure diseases, but we are making drugs to allow any person to reproduce...

You should watch the film Idiocracy to gain some funny, but well thought out insight into the subject.

[lucaspa]

I side with yourdadonapogos on this one. If the ants were as intelligent, sentient, etc, as any other (human) person, I think killing them would qualify as murder. Even if they are a separate species.

 

Ah, but note that qualifier "if". That qualifier is not there in real life, is it? Yourdad did not have the qualifier. He said "species membership doesn't matter". He said nothing about intelligence, sentience, etc. mattering either. You have a different set of criteria to what matters.

 

So, let's deal with this in the real world where fire ants do not have the capabilities you listed after your "if". Do you still agree with Yourdad then?

 

There is so much talk about sexual selection being whats important and that it doesnt matter if we cure diseases, but we are making drugs to allow any person to reproduce...

 

Good! The premise of the film and your post is what we have talked about before in several versions: traits are only "good" or "bad" in different environments. There are very few absolutely good or bad traits. And, even if a person has one, there are lots of other alleles that are beneficial to the population if the person could just pass them on.

 

Back to the prime example of Stephen Hawking. He suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, which is genetic. Drugs kept him alive long enough for him to have kids. So they have the alleles for the disease. BUT, they also have the alleles for Hawking's brilliant mind! Do you really want to lose the alleles for the mind because you have some idea that the disease is "absolutely" bad and must be eliminated?

 

Basically, natural selection is much smarter than we are. Part of the environment is the technology to let people live that, in an environment without the technology, would otherwise die. Just let natural selection work so that we can keep as much genetic variability in the population as we can.

 

Very often, slight advantages mean nothing for evolution.

 

Sorry, but the data shows otherwise. If you have ANY positive s (selection coefficient), no matter how small, the mathematics of population genetics guarantees that eventually that allele will become fixed (100% frequency in the population).

[ydoaPs]

Ah, but note that qualifier "if". That qualifier is not there in real life, is it? Yourdad did not have the qualifier. He said "species membership doesn't matter". He said nothing about intelligence, sentience, etc. mattering either. You have a different set of criteria to what matters.

 

So, let's deal with this in the real world where fire ants do not have the capabilities you listed after your "if". Do you still agree with Yourdad then?

 

Please stop misrepresenting my position. If you're replying to or discussing my position, don't misrepresent it.

[lucaspa]

Imagine I had a time machine and I brought into our time an ancestor of ours from a million years ago with whom we can successfully breed. We are H Sapiens. This ancestor would then, by your definition, would be H Sapiens. Thus, according to you, they have all the same rights as us because they are of the same species.

 

That's a big "if". A million years ago the morphology is so different that the species is H. erectus.

 

Let's drop back 50,000 years when there were at least morphological H. sapiens.

 

Now, I use my time machine to bring to our time a descendant of mine with whom it is possible for me to successfully breed. Since I am a H Sapiens, this future descendant with whom I can successfully breed is a H Sapiens. This means, according to you, we treat them how we treat all H Sapiens.

 

Now, my ancestor and my descendant, whom I brought here in my time machine, cannot successfully interbreed. Thus they are not the same species and one or both of them MUST NOT be H Sapiens.

 

Which one is H Sapiens? Who gets the rights and who is a mere beast?

 

Right. It means that we are in the middle of an transition from one species to another (unlikely since our population is so large, but we can do your hypothetical). In all likelihood, the individual from the future would be assigned the new species name within the genus Homo. Call it H. futurus.

 

Our rights are set for H. sapiens. We would have to choose to extend those rights to H. futurus. And, conversely, if you were transported to that society, it would have to choose to extend their rights to you. We are not required to do the extending.

 

This gets back to what I kept alluding to in terms of AI and possible chimeras and ETs: sapience. I would argue that we would (and should) decide to include sapient intelligences as part of "people".

 

I maintain that species membership is not morally relevant.

 

But you are still in the genus Homo and looking at a chronospecies. You haven't addressed the other implications of your statement. After all, you just say "species membership" as any species.

 

Does that mean it is morally wrong to kill the fire ants in my lawn? If species membership is not morally relevant, isn't that murder?

 

Or how about the predator/prey relationship? Is the predator committing murder by eating the prey? If you say "yes", then you condemn the predator to starvation.

 

There is a qualitative difference between an average H Sapiens and a mentally retarded H Sapiens; does the mentally retarded H Sapiens qualify for person status?

 

Not completely. There are some rights that a mentally retarded H. sapiens does not have. Mental status does count in determining person status. After all, Terry Schiavo lost her status as a "person" because she lost her mental status, didn't she? No brain = OK to kill. No longer a person. Similarly, by the reckoning of many people's ethics, a 3 month or less H. sapiens fetus is not a "person" either, is it? It doesn't have mental ability.

 

So, you effectively want an "all or nothing" qualification for personhood? Now, which human is the standard for this comparison? Who must one at least match mentally to be counted?

 

In terms of other species? Yes. All or nothing. In terms of members of H. sapies, it's obvious that we do have a gradation of "personhood". Children do not have all the rights of adults. During adolescence we gradually provide part of the freedoms we assign to adults -- to drive, to drink, etc.

 

You answered the second question yourself later in your post: "basing the ethical consideration ... on the relevant properties of the average healthy member of the species in question." As it happens, I also suggest the comparison be to an average adult of the species. From what I have seen, chimps and other apes have average mental abilities comparable to an average 6 year old H. sapiens child.

 

Species membership not being relevant!=all creatures being on equal footing morally. There is a gradient of morally relevant properties and thus a gradient of personhood.

 

How can there be a gradient when you say "all creatures being on an equal footing morally? If you make a "gradient", then some are lower and some higher on the gradient! Sorry, Yourdad, you can't say equal and then say "gradient".

 

Ethical consideration is based on morally relevant properties of the individual. Species membership is not a morally relevant property.

 

Sure it is. A shark has no morally relevant property against killing a human. A shark's morality in this is due to belonging to its species. Similarly, the Black Plague bacilli's morality of making people ill and killing them is based on its species membership. This is what this species of bacillis does!

 

You keep bypassing, Yourdad, that humans simply can't live without killing members of other species. We are an animal! We have to at least kill plants for food. So, if species membership is not a morally relevant property, then you are being immoral every time you eat! Your only "moral" choice is to starve to death.

 

Basing ethical consideration of an individual on species alone(as I said before, species membership can, in some cases, be used as a thumb rule) is nepotism.

 

??? Nepotism is giving favors to your relatives. But let's examine your statement. You look at a human and a corn plant. You need to eat to survive. Isn't membership in the species alone that gives you the ethical consideration that it is OK to eat the corn plant but not OK to eat the human? If not, what other consideration is there?

 

If your ethical decision affects a large population of a single species rather than an individual(or small group) it is permissible to use species membership as a thumbrule basing the ethical consideration of the population on the morally relevant properties of the average healthy member of the species in question. This is NOT the same as saying species membership is a morally relevant property of an individual.

 

??? Please provide an example to explain what you are thinkig of. As far as I can see from what you are saying, if your decision to eat affects a large number of corn plants (individuals of a species), then it is OK to kill them. Basically, Yourdad, you are providing a great justification for genocide! Or speciescide. Say your actions are going to destroy most of a species or several species -- as in cutting down the Amazon rainforest -- then you are saying it is OK to use species membership as a means of deciding if it is moral! Since they are not of your species, then it becomes moral. I'm sure you are going to be outraged and yell "strawman" (without explaining how it is a strawman), but what I said follows logically from what you said. I don't think you are thinking thru the consequences of what you are saying before you say it. Or perhaps you are parroting someone else and haven't thought thru what they said.

 

NO! If you don't understand, ask specific questions.

 

Why isn't a preying mantis a person? You keep saying the species membership is irrelevant: "I maintain that species membership is not morally relevant"

 

It not having a brain? It not having morally relevant properties?

 

Preying mantis has a brain. What qualifies as "morally relevant properties"? I ask this especially since you keep reiterating "Species membership is not a morally relevant property". An inevitable conclusion from this is that all members of all species have the same morally relevant properties.

 

We should NOT ditch science. Most good philosophy is rooted in science. What good is philosophy if it isn't based on reality?

 

1. I did not say "ditch science". I said "wave bye-bye to science. Science is not a system of ethics." You also should have read to the end of my comment before you posted. I said at the end "Just recognize, Ecoli, that you might try to bring good science to a discussion, but that doesn't make the discussion "scientific". "

 

2. Science is not, and does not deal with, all of reality. It is a small subset of reality. Most of human existence takes place outside of science.

 

As SJ Gould noted: "Science is a discipline, and disciplines are exacting. All maintain rules of conduct and self-policing. All gain strength, respect, and acceptance by working honorably within their bounds and knowing when transgression upon other realms counts as hubris or folly. Science, as a discipline, tries to understand the factual state of nature and to explain and coordinate these data into general theories. Science teaches us many wonderful and disturbing things - facts that need weighing when we try to develop standards of conduct and ponder the great questions of morals and aesthetics. But science cannot answer these questions alone and cannot dictate social policy. ... We live with poets and politicians, preachers and philosophers. All have their ways of knowing, and all are valid in their proper domains. The world is too complex and interesting for one way to hold all the answers. " Stephen Jay Gould in the essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991, pp. 429-430.

[CharonY]

Sorry, but the data shows otherwise. If you have ANY positive s (selection coefficient), no matter how small, the mathematics of population genetics guarantees that eventually that allele will become fixed (100% frequency in the population).

 

Actually this is only true for infinite time frames. Normally the fixation probability scales with s, but depending on what factors we allow into a model the allele might well get lost prior fixation. So, not in all cases do beneficial mutations persist. On the other hand, alleles do not necessarily need to be fixed to play a role...

[PhDP]

Lucaspa,

 

Sorry, but your data and your maths are wrong.

 

This particular sentence;

 

If you have ANY positive s (selection coefficient), no matter how small, the mathematics of population genetics guarantees that eventually that allele will become fixed (100% frequency in the population).

 

...means nothing. Even the most ardent believer in natural selection knows that it has a blind spot when |s| is too small. If the allele is neutral (very close to 0, either positive or negative), or even deleterious, given infinite time and one-way mutations, mathematical population genetics guarantees the fixation of the allele (eventually...). But the probability of fixation of a single neutral mutant is 1/2N.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that a positive value of s is no different than a negative value if |s| is too small (compared to N), it's evolution 101.

[Mr Skeptic]

As I understood yourdad's posts, it was that species membership is irrelevant to morality, in theory. If other species had the attributes that a person has other then species membership, they would still be a person. You could then have a non-human person, or a human who is not a person.

 

In practice, none of the members of other species (that we know of) have the attributes required to be considered a person. And it doesn't help that a person is vaguely defined in the first place.

 

Anyhow, I do think that species membership should be morally relevant in as much as it is similar to kin relationship, albeit incredibly extended kin.

[halogirl]

you know it seems to me that no matter what we come up with to cure problems in humans, there is always another new thing that pops up and stumps us for an exceptional length of time. although i like the support learning about illnesses and disorders, and curing them, could this be mother nature inducing a form of population control?

[Vlad007]

Seriously. How can you say that there is no such thing as a bas gene or a good gene? I guess that it depends on your definition of bad, but generally by most human standards, being blind, or having a deadly disease is a bad thing...

[iNow]

The "goodness" and "badness" of genes are both arbitrary and time dependent. What is good now could be bad later. What is bad now could be good later.

 

It's a completely arbitrary, subjective, and biased label with no inherent use or descriptive power.

 

 

 

Is it good to have a fast metabolism? It helps you from gaining weight when food is abundantly available, but it makes you die during times when food is in short supply.