I think I disproved evolution

[Peron]

Okay if natural selection only selects the most beneficial mutations to the organism, then how does sky diving, or skiing, or even wearing a condom benefit humans.

In a way humans are going against their nature, we engage in tasks that are not beneficial to our own survival, using a condom ensures that we don't pass on our genetic material, when clearly natural selection should have programmed us into sex maniacs to ensure that we propagate and survive.

 

And why do people adopt other peoples kids? Some birds actually through out their cousins from the nest to ensure their own survival. Humans are a complete 360 from what nature should have made us.

 

So, whats going on, is this the first crack in evolutionary theory?

[D H]

Okay if natural selection only selects the most beneficial mutations to the organism,

False.

 

then how does sky diving, or skiing, or even wearing a condom benefit humans.

Even if the antecedent is true, this is a non sequitur.

 

In a way humans are going against their nature

True. So what?

 

when clearly natural selection should have programmed us into sex maniacs to ensure that we propagate and survive.

We are sex maniacs for the most part.

 

So, whats going on, is this the first crack in evolutionary theory?

No.

[the tree]

Okay if natural selection only selects the most beneficial mutations to the organism,

No, evolutionary theory is not about individuals.

[Peron]

False.

 

 

Even if the antecedent is true, this is a non sequitur.

 

 

True. So what?

 

 

We are sex maniacs for the most part.

 

 

No.

 

You seem to be a little hostile towards the post. I want to understand things better.

[Mr Skeptic]

Okay if natural selection only selects the most beneficial mutations to the organism,

 

It doesn't.

 

then how does sky diving, or skiing,

 

Displays of bravado are used in mate choice to prove one has healthy genes.

 

or even wearing a condom benefit humans.

 

100 years is not enough to have noticeable evolution; also, a condom protects from diseases and need not be used when the couple wants to have a child.

 

In a way humans are going against their nature, we engage in tasks that are not beneficial to our own survival, using a condom ensures that we don't pass on our genetic material, when clearly natural selection should have programmed us into sex maniacs to ensure that we propagate and survive.

 

Animals have mechanisms to avoid reproducing unsustainably; for example hunger greatly diminishes sex drive. Having children is not always productive. Also, the same attributes that mean we can use condoms mean we can, for example, make airplanes and not punch anyone who insult us.

 

And why do people adopt other peoples kids? Some birds actually through out their cousins from the nest to ensure their own survival. Humans are a complete 360 from what nature should have made us.

 

Adopting people related to you (all humans are) increases your fitness. They don't have to be your own offspring to have your genes.

 

So, whats going on, is this the first crack in evolutionary theory?

 

What's going on is misunderstanding.

[insane_alien]

you seem to be confusing taking risks with a lack of reproductive success.

 

the only way a human activity is going to cause a break down is if doing this activity results in a decreased chance of producing offspring.

 

skydiving does not inhibit your ability to produce offspring, neither does wearing condoms(you always have the option to take it off when you want kids).

 

the only way skydiving reduces your chances of offspring is if you die. but then, thats would be a reasonably rare occurance. less than 100 people a year die from skydiving, thousands skydive each year. not that big a group all things considered.

 

i think you need to think about these things more. they show cracks in evolution no more than a two year olds scribbles show that all humans are illiterate.

[Peron]

I did think about about it and the only conclusion I could come to, is that the reason most humans engage in hedonism is because we are intelligent to the point that we can subvert our genes. Humans can recognize their instincts and choose to not carry them out, if we don't want to.

 

I think another explanation came from Richard Dawkins; in one of his lectures, he describes how humans can replace their genes with social memes, these social memes mimic genes, producing the illusion of brotherhood or kinship i.e religions.

 

I liked that explanation, but I needed to cross reference it.

[insane_alien]

it only affects evolution if it affects reproduction. neither skydiving or condom wearing have enough of an impact on this to provide any selective pressures.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Intelligence is also an evolved trait, so our intelligence overriding other traits (like being too stupid to successfully catch animals) isn't too surprising.

 

Also, wearing condoms isn't an inherited trait, so evolving to not use condoms isn't very plausible.

[MM6]

I did think about about it and the only conclusion I could come to, is that the reason most humans engage in hedonism is because we are intelligent to the point that we can subvert our genes. Humans can recognize their instincts and choose to not carry them out, if we don't want to.

 

The same genes that give rise to our intelligence and capacity for independent thought by extension allow for hedonism, excessive risk taking, suicidal acts, use of contraceptives, charm, seduction, the suite of human behaviors. But on the whole there's a positive selective pressure for these genes even if it means some members of the population directly or indirectly subvert the propagation of their own genes.

[pioneer]

If you look at the progression of humans, especially over the past 10,000 years, less of this progression is due to genetics, and more is connected to the impact of the human brain/mind. There is not a cell phone gene that suddenly mutated, so these devices are attached to the millions of human ears. That modification was done with the brain; creating and learning.

 

Humans are a transition species. We depend more on intelligent designs (via the brain/invention/leaning) to alter the human critter. We work out at the health club to add muscle and do not have to wait for the DNA to mutate this for us, like the rest of nature.

 

Evolution applies to modern humans, but as a decaying influence with the bigger picture connected to our progressing intelligence designs.

 

Evolution was/is more important for animals and plants, but sort of sloped downward in importance, with the rise of humans. The brain took the lead ushering in the age of intelligent design, lording over evolutionary design. We can ignore instinct, breed useless animals that are all show, or breed plants that nature never evolved because of human intelligence.

 

Maybe a way to prove this is to make two lists. One list will be human progress as a function of the mind. The other list will be human progress directly connected to natural genetic changes. This way we can get a handle on the ID to evolutionary ratio. Once ID can fully manipulate the DNA (science) intelligence will be fully in control of evolution. ID will decide what it thinks it wants, even if it is short sighted, and can not see the full consequences. When steroids were invented, who figured intelligence is not always so smart. So, how do you deal with the eventual intelligence designs that will lord over evolution, when evolution is often wiser than the best ID?

[Zolar V]

If it where ID, then how come i don't have 4 arms? or are able to see ultraviolet light, (the membrane in front of the pupil doesn't let in the light, even though we can see it.)

 

How come we have not developed wings?

I know i have thought of all of these, and i also know that it has been thought of before.

 

If the Human Brain had AN impact then the above would be possible.

[ercdndrs]

In my experience willing onesself to sprout wings doesn't usually work.

[J.C.MacSwell]

In my experience willing onesself to sprout wings doesn't usually work.

 

Kudos all the same for all your attempts, and congratulations on the time, or times, you succeeded

[Leader Bee]

Okay if natural selection only selects the most beneficial mutations to the organism

 

 

Natural Selection doesn't select the most beneficial mutations for an organism it just appears so because that RANDOM mutation happens to be beneficial and hence more of the organisms that develop this trait survive, due to it being beneficial.

 

Evolution does not discriminate between good or bad, it is indifferent and an equal amount of mutations that are detrimental can occur - you just don't see many antelope with 3 inch legs because it makes it difficult to run away from the lions.

[forufes]

if sky diving or wearing condoms reduces survival, those "carrying" it will eventually leave the gene pool.

 

bad mutations have to happen first before natural selection chooses against them.

[insane_alien]

if sky diving or wearing condoms reduces survival before reproduction, those "carrying" it will eventually leave the gene pool.

 

bad mutations have to happen first before natural selection chooses against them.

 

fixed.

 

for the exceptionally dense, the parts in bold, i added.

[Silivros]

Are we assuming that natural selection applies similarly to every species or to every member of a species?

 

I won't go with the extremes of sky diving etc., but the human species will make choices that run contrary to natural selection as it is generally applied.

 

Abstinence and altruism are two examples that do not follow the standard criteria of natural selection.

Species that run on the chemical processes of instinctual and emotional needs are in line with natural selection. Most of the animal kingdom and many members of the human species operate on these instinctual or emotional chemical processes, but there are those within the human population that make choices that are not controlled by the chemical reactions of emotional wants or desires.

 

From my perspective, this is not to say that evolution has a chink in its armor, rather I believe that we need to reevaluate how we determine evolutionary processes in the human species. Awareness of choice and its resulting actions are a behavior and every behavior has a chemical component that impacts the body down to the cellular level.

Often when we demand proof of the evolutionary process we tend to look for the large change, the physical morphology; but forget to look at what actually begins the process, and that would be a behavioral change.

 

Chemical impact from behavioral changes begins the processes of change in genetic expression, how long this takes to eventually create a change which we can actually measure and record, who’s to say, although we can draw some comparisons from recent adaptations in species such as Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and the common louse that have shown the ability to adapt to environmental stressors. The relevance in this comparison is that these species life cycles are millions/billions, etc. of times quicker than the human species, therefore if we can garner anything from this comparison it would be in possibly understanding how long a noticeable change might occur in not only the human species, but also other longer life cycled species.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Silivros

[CharonY]

Are we assuming that natural selection applies similarly to every species or to every member of a species?

No, selective pressure are expected to vary dramatically from population to population (even within a species).

Selective advantages of altruism have been well investigated. Vampire bats are the classical example.