The End of Darwinian Evolution

[Mrs Zeta]

Evolution by natural selection has been effective at producing increasinlgy more complex creatures. However, humans may now be able to continue evolving by means other than natural selection, which, let's face it, is a very slow process. We can now evolve via a developmental singularity process which means that more intellectual sophistication will be achieved quicker, and more efficiently, in the same individual. The consequence of this is that death by ageing will become unecessary. For full reasons and a discussion see here:

 

https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ

[thinker_jeff]

I agree with you that in human beings the Darwinian Evolution is ending. But my reason is somehow different.

 

The classic evolution is based on two key processes: genovariation and natural selection. In our modern society the marriage system almost give every human being the chance to breed the next generation, and the population in next generation almost same as in current generation. The fact is that they are almost all alive by help of medical system. Therefore, the process of natural selection has been ending, only the process of genovariation still exists. This is not Darwinian Evolution but something else happened.

 

 

[SMF]

Mrs Zeta. Your ideas are fun but are speculative fiction, especially because you don't take into account a large variety of other predictions that, it they were correct, would make yours very unlikely. SM

[Mrs Zeta]

Mrs Zeta. Your ideas are fun but are speculative fiction, especially because you don't take into account a large variety of other predictions that, it they were correct, would make yours very unlikely. SM

 

We will wait and see. Maybe my predictions would make these other predictions unlikely. In the meantime, there is no harm in following some of my advice, eg. keep mentally alert, do brain and mental exercises, avoid monotonous boredom, seek out variety, don't accept anything at face value but always question the facts, aim for excellence, don't follow the crowds but always live a life full of new and exciting events, always push the boundaries, seek out new horizons etc.

[insane_alien]

darwinian evolution has not been the favouable choice in modern science for quite some time now (read nearing a century) modern synthesis is where its at as it includes all of the other factors influencing selection and introducing variation.

[thinker_jeff]

darwinian evolution has not been the favouable choice in modern science for quite some time now (read nearing a century) modern synthesis is where its at as it includes all of the other factors influencing selection and introducing variation.

Modern Synthesis does not abandon Darwinian Evolution, instead, modified the Evolution Theory with the factor of generic mutation. The key processes are still genovariation and natural selection.

[SMF]

One of the most interesting relatively recent additions to the theory for me was the significance of neutral mutations.

[insane_alien]

Modern Synthesis does not abandon Darwinian Evolution, instead, modified the Evolution Theory with the factor of generic mutation. The key processes are still genovariation and natural selection.

 

Yes, I am perfectly aware of this. Modern Synthesis replaces Darwinian evolution in the same way Einsteinian Mechanics replaced Newtonian Mechanics.

 

While like Newtonian Mechanics, Darwinian Evolution can still be useful to think about, it is in fact wrong(er) when compared to the current iteration. The OP seems to suggest that natural selection no longer happens, well, it will always happen. Natural Selection will never go away but as the environment changes its impact will decrease as other selection pressures arise.

[Mrs Zeta]

Yes, I am perfectly aware of this. Modern Synthesis replaces Darwinian evolution in the same way Einsteinian Mechanics replaced Newtonian Mechanics.

 

While like Newtonian Mechanics, Darwinian Evolution can still be useful to think about, it is in fact wrong(er) when compared to the current iteration. The OP seems to suggest that natural selection no longer happens, well, it will always happen. Natural Selection will never go away but as the environment changes its impact will decrease as other selection pressures arise.

 

I agree that natural selection will still operate, albeit at a much lower level. But some humans will be able to develop and evolve through means other than natural selection. These people will experience a significant increase in their lifespans because they will not have to obey to the constraints of natural selection.

[insane_alien]

These people will experience a significant increase in their lifespans because they will not have to obey to the constraints of natural selection.

 

yes they will. EVERYTHING has to obey the constraints of natural selection. the only thing that can change is the environment

[thinker_jeff]

Natural Selection will never go away but as the environment changes its impact will decrease as other selection pressures arise.

Quote from Wikipedia: Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers.

If the process of Natural Seletion still works in modern society, how it effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers?

[SMF]

Insane_alien, Mrs Zeta thinks that unnatural selection is going to take over. SM

[Mr Skeptic]

Insane_alien, Mrs Zeta thinks that unnatural selection is going to take over. SM

 

Which is nothing more than natural selection in an "unnatural" environment.

[SMF]

Mr Skeptic says, regarding my comment about unnatural selection,-- "Which is nothing more than natural selection in an unnatural environment." Answer-- For me yes. No. I am not sure. I guess my interest is, is it plausible? SM

[Mrs Zeta]

yes they will. EVERYTHING has to obey the constraints of natural selection. the only thing that can change is the environment

 

Well, not EVERYTHING. My neighbour is currying some type of a dodgy gene and she almost died during her first pregnancy. Her baby was born at 28 weeks. She had access to top medical technology and both she and the baby have survived. Two years later, the same story. There are now two apparently healthy children running around in London who would otherwise have been eliminated by natural selection if in the wild. This is happening on a global scale. Technology is changing our evolution, taking over from natural selection. It is called 'anthropogenic evolution'. Many established phenomena and processes are now being changed, eliminated or enhanced according to technology (medical, genetic, cybernetic, call it what you like). People with 'vision' are able to notice this......

[SMF]

Mrs Zeta:

 

You say-

People with 'vision' are able to notice this......

 

I say- It is so great to have people with vision to help me find my way in this complicated world. Sheesh!

 

SM

[michel123456]

Doesn't that pose some ethics question?

 

I am reading on the subject.

Mrs Zeta seems to be a transhumanist extropianist immortalist. Very interesting. I'll need you some day...soon.

Edited February 19, 2011 by michel123456

[TonyMcC]

The one advantage the human race has over other species is a high level of intelligence. These days it seems to me that the more intelligent humans in developed countries are marrying later in life (reducing their chances of children) and deliberately having fewer children than the less intelligent humans. Will this eventually result in an overall reduction in the average intelligence of people in developed countries?

[Mrs Zeta]

The one advantage the human race has over other species is a high level of intelligence. These days it seems to me that the more intelligent humans in developed countries are marrying later in life (reducing their chances of children) and deliberately having fewer children than the less intelligent humans. Will this eventually result in an overall reduction in the average intelligence of people in developed countries?

 

I would say no, because people in these countries as a whole will be exposed to new technology and thus, one hopes, their cognitive abilities/intelligence will increase. It was fascinating to read about poor villagers in Afghanistan using mobile phones and mobile internet.

 

BUT, having said that, some thinkers believe that as sociey becomes more intelligent, individual intelligence will decrease (we won't have to use our brain as much because the computers will solve most of our everyday problems,- think calculators and arithmetic). So we need to prevent this scenario by perhaps, intentionally increasing our personal cognitive input, much the same as physical exercise is necessary in a labour-saving society.

[SMF]

TonyMcC, you don't have to worry too much about the greater number of offspring in the undeveloped nations or lower socioeconomic groups having an effect on the evolution of intelligence because of several factors. 1) Lower socioeconomic status/national development does not relate very well to innate (e.g. genetic) intelligence. 2) Intelligence is a very polygenetic trait and so is difficult to isolate by breeding. 3) It is modern developed nations that reduce evolutionary pressure so don't you think, in opposition to your concern, that being able to live long enough to breed and raise offspring in a challenging environment might instead provide a strong bias in evolutionary pressure for increased intelligence?

 

Mrs Zeta, you seem to be supporting Lysenkoism.

 

SM

[TonyMcC]

....... 3) It is modern developed nations that reduce evolutionary pressure so don't you think, in opposition to your concern, that being able to live long enough to breed and raise offspring in a challenging environment might instead provide a strong bias in evolutionary pressure for increased intelligence?

SM

I think you are agreeing with me. I was wondering whether fewer children for high intelligence couples would lead to a reduction in average intelligence in developed countries. The reverse of that applies to undeveloped countries where increased intelligence would give an advantage in the fight for survival. Please don't think that I believe the people in undeveloped countries are somehow of lower intelligence. I think the trend, which may have been going on for a while, may work to the disadvantage of developed countries.

[SMF]

Tony McC. You should post this in the Genetics section if you want a more technical answer, but I will expand on my previous comments:

 

1) The deal is that you and I don't know (nor does anyone else) if the groups of people who are producing many children are any less intelligent than the ones that have smaller families. I am referring here to the genetic portion of intelligence (native intelligence). One hundred plus years ago the US population was mostly rural and large families were very common. Do you think that their progeny (that be us) suddenly increased their native intelligence as family sizes decreased? Remember that the current concept of intelligence involves testing (e.g. IQ), but the tests require acquired knowledge. Someone with high native intelligence raised in a humble environment would probably go on to act like his peers and raise a large family and wouldn’t test very high.

 

2) A polygenetic trait involves many different genes, probably in specific combinations, to generate somebody who has a high native intelligence. Similarly, intelligence involves a whole array of behavioral traits. Something this complicated requires much more time to evolve, especially if there is any mixing of genes between different groups. If two geniuses produce a child, he/she is very unlikely to be a genius. Similarly, two retardates are very likely to have a child of normal intelligence. If the eugenics movement were to raise its ugly head again and take control of the government, with extensive testing and a precise breeding program, they might raise the intelligence of our nation, a little, in 1K to 2K years. And, there would not be any assurance that these folks would meet our approval of intelligence. With gene mixing between groups and no specific selection, a change may not happen at all. It would take a series of genetic bottlenecks with small founding populations to increase the rate of evolution, as has apparently happened in human evolution in the past, and this could happen again if our many billions of people were abruptly reduced down to a few hundred thousand survivors.

 

3) I think this point was pretty clear. It doesn't matter whether the folks with low socioeconomic status and large families are in our developed nation, or in an undeveloped nation. The selection pressure for intelligence would be stronger in the low socioeconomic group than in the high socioeconomic group. However, as mentioned above, this sort of weak selection pressure in large populations would only cause change at a pace that is not even worth considering in our rapidly changing world.

 

In short, this is not a problem. SM

 

 

[michel123456]

It would take a series of genetic bottlenecks with small founding populations to increase the rate of evolution, as has apparently happened in human evolution in the past, and this could happen again if our many billions of people were abruptly reduced down to a few hundred thousand survivors.

(emphasis mine)

FMI Do you have some source?

[steevey]

I agree with you that in human beings the Darwinian Evolution is ending. But my reason is somehow different.

 

 

 

You think with all the problems in the world caused by humans that the human race doesn't need to change that much?

 

Evolution by natural selection has been effective at producing increasinlgy more complex creatures. However, humans may now be able to continue evolving by means other than natural selection, which, let's face it, is a very slow process. We can now evolve via a developmental singularity process which means that more intellectual sophistication will be achieved quicker, and more efficiently, in the same individual. The consequence of this is that death by ageing will become unecessary. For full reasons and a discussion see here:

 

https://acrobat.com/...kdwono-lQL6thBQ

 

 

 

The process of natural selection doesn't occur because we need it to or not. There will always be some genes that get mutated, and my guess is that some of them will survive for tens of generations even if they aren't completely necessary as some are right now.

Edited February 20, 2011 by steevey

[TonyMcC]

SMF - Firstly let me say that evolution and genetics is not my "thing". In considering the heading of this thread "The end of Darwinian Evolution" it occured to me that we may be not following an evolutionary pathway that will aid the development of human intelligence, particularly in developed countries. Of course my idea depends on two people who are very intelligent because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be more intelligent than the average. It also depends on two people who are less intelligent because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be less intelligent than the average. It is only an idea and I have no evidence that this is so - I would be interested to know of any evidence for or against the idea.