The End of Darwinian Evolution

[thinker_jeff]

It hasn't been "stopped" by any means, which if you read any of my other posts you would know, but its a way to prevent deaths.

I agree with SMF that you are trolling.

 

Please explain why in modern society the Natural Selection still continues in human beings if they are lived in the way to prevent deaths.

 

 

 

 

 

[steevey]

I agree with SMF that you are trolling.

 

Please explain why in modern society the Natural Selection still continues in human beings if they are lived in the way to prevent deaths.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Airlines don't stop everything do they? Some times sicknesses sweep through nations, like Cholera in Hati, or in Mexico. The population of Mexico is resistant to Cholera since in very recent geological time their ancestors drank water which contained Cholera. But, not every process of evolution is driven by resistances to germs either, which should be obvious. There's also this article to provide yet some more evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643312.stm that natural selection is still at work, and once again, here's this http://www.time.com/...1931757,00.html

Edited February 25, 2011 by steevey

[thinker_jeff]

Airlines don't stop everything do they? Some times sicknesses sweep through nations, like Cholera in Hati, or in Mexico. The population of Mexico is resistant to Cholera since in very recent geological time their ancestors drank water which contained Cholera. But, not every process of evolution is driven by resistances to germs either, which should be obvious. There's also this article to provide yet some more evidence http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4643312.stm that natural selection is still at work, and once again, here's this http://www.time.com/...1931757,00.html

Is Hati a modern country? Is Mexico a modern country? No, they are not!

If you question why different people is asking you a similar question again and again, the answer should be obvious that they do not understand your point.

[steevey]

Is Hati a modern country? Is Mexico a modern country? No, they are not!

If you question why different people is asking you a similar question again and again, the answer should be obvious that they do not understand your point.

 

Except if you read my links you'd know that there is real evidence evolution is going on today. I didn't mention them that much in the actual post because I thought it would be redundant since you'd be expected to read them before saying my point is invalid.

[Ringer]

Steevey I think they want something more like this or this.

[steevey]

Steevey I think they want something more like this or this.

 

If I had good sources other than books and people in real life, on the internet, I would have used them, but the links I used still contain real research and scientific input, so there's no reason for them to keep saying that evolution can't possibly be going on today.

Edited February 25, 2011 by steevey

[SMF]

Steevey, I read the BBC and Time articles. They are both news items and don't actually provide any evidence of Evolution. In the BBC article the lead author of the report is Peter Rock, an orthodontist. I couldn't find any research article by him in Google Scholar that would demonstrate that his speculations have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Most of what he reports can be explained by improved environment (e.g. nutrition or health).

 

The Times article reports on a legitimate research article. Read it here- http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.1/1787.full . This report demonstrates, with a statistical analysis, how differential reproduction rates have biased the frequency of some phenotypic traits by a very small amount in a population. This would take a very long time to change the genome and would only do so if the same reproductive advantage was consistent over time and there was no outbreeding. This sort of natural selection that alters gene frequency, not genes, is interesting, but is sort of like saying that humans as a whole are changing to be more like the populations of China and India because they have become a larger portion of the world population in recent years. It is also the type of selection that would be reduced for the reasons suggested by the original post in this thread.

 

I also did a search for any research showing special genetic traits related to Inuit diet and could find nothing. This group migrated to the Americas 11,500 years ago and look pretty much like the Siberian group that they migrated from and to some north American native americans (e.g. Navajo).

 

This is a difficult topic, and I suggest you read- http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.0030090#top to get some idea of the complexity involved in doing genetic analysis for evolutionary changes in humans. This is pretty hard going, but it references other research articles that you can follow up on if you wish to learn more. This article suggests that actual changes in genes occur on the order of tens of thousands of years. SM

[Mr Skeptic]

According to this study, not only has human evolution not stopped, but it has sped up:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving/

[SMF]

Mr Skeptic, the Wired article is about a research article- http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.long that suggests that evolutionary rate has increased in the last 40,000 years relative to previous times by some interesting genetic mechanisms. They cite selection pressures that act on the genetic changes involve human migration that resulted in changes in skin pigmentation and adaptation to new environments, changes relative to transition to agriculture, increased disease mortality from the mixture of disparate groups that promote epidemics, and subsistence agriculture and changing diet that affected genes such as lactase. The original post here suggests that technology will greatly reduce all of these selection pressures and within this scenario, as a thought experiment, I agree. I just don’t agree that this will happen and in fact I think that looming problems secondary to overpopulation will radically increase differential survival and may accelerate evolutionary rate even further. SM

 

 

[steevey]

Steevey, I read the BBC and Time articles. They are both news items and don't actually provide any evidence of Evolution. In the BBC article the lead author of the report is Peter Rock, an orthodontist. I couldn't find any research article by him in Google Scholar that would demonstrate that his speculations have been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Most of what he reports can be explained by improved environment (e.g. nutrition or health).

 

The Times article reports on a legitimate research article. Read it here- http://www.pnas.org/...ppl.1/1787.full . This report demonstrates, with a statistical analysis, how differential reproduction rates have biased the frequency of some phenotypic traits by a very small amount in a population. This would take a very long time to change the genome and would only do so if the same reproductive advantage was consistent over time and there was no outbreeding. This sort of natural selection that alters gene frequency, not genes, is interesting, but is sort of like saying that humans as a whole are changing to be more like the populations of China and India because they have become a larger portion of the world population in recent years. It is also the type of selection that would be reduced for the reasons suggested by the original post in this thread.

 

I also did a search for any research showing special genetic traits related to Inuit diet and could find nothing. This group migrated to the Americas 11,500 years ago and look pretty much like the Siberian group that they migrated from and to some north American native americans (e.g. Navajo).

 

This is a difficult topic, and I suggest you read- http://www.plosgenet...gen.0030090#top to get some idea of the complexity involved in doing genetic analysis for evolutionary changes in humans. This is pretty hard going, but it references other research articles that you can follow up on if you wish to learn more. This article suggests that actual changes in genes occur on the order of tens of thousands of years. SM

 

It would seem you and your links trying to support the arguement, that because there doesn't need to be a new many adaptations to survive, that evolutionary process in humans is stopping. I could agree with you that perhaps the process of evolution in humans right now is slowing currently, but its not coming to a halt and the environment will change just as its been for the last 3.9±.2 billion years but usually very slowly. And if we discover how to travel faster than light and learn how to live on other planets, theres whole new worlds in which to adapt to.

Although evolution can and normally does take many years, how else do you explain the variation in skulls of humans if not by a more prominent and efficient form surviving? I don't think one genome getting more expressed can really do that an an entire population.

Edited February 26, 2011 by steevey

[SMF]

It would seem you and your links trying to support the arguement, that because there doesn't need to be a new many adaptations to survive, that evolutionary process in humans is stopping. I could agree with you that perhaps the process of evolution in humans right now is slowing currently, but its not coming to a halt and the environment will change just as its been for the last 3.9±.2 billion years but usually very slowly. And if we discover how to travel faster than light and learn how to live on other planets, theres whole new worlds in which to adapt to.

Although evolution can and normally does take many years, how else do you explain the variation in skulls of humans if not by a more prominent and efficient form surviving? I don't think one genome getting more expressed can really do that an an entire population.

 

Steevey, I and the references I cite don't say what you think at all. In addition, I don't understand what the last two sentences you added mean. What skulls and what genome are you talking about? SM

Edited February 26, 2011 by SMF

[steevey]

Steevey, I and the references I cite don't say what you think at all. In addition, I don't understand what the last two sentences you added mean. What skulls and what genome are you talking about? SM

 

The article that stated that in the last 650 years, the skulls of human populations have changed, while you seemed to be arguing that different genomes are more expressed rather than different genes being created and assimilated into the human race.

Edited February 26, 2011 by steevey

[Mrs Zeta]

My primary focus is on human (i.e. not on any other organism) evolution by natural selection. I believe that some human population sub-groups may be able to adapt and evolve, by processes other than natural selection.

 

I have two concerns here:

 

1. Traditional natural selection is a slow process. This is contrary to some modern or near-term futuristic theories claiming that technology, evolution, development and other processes will progressively speed up, in order to achieve more and more, in less and less time. But if there is evidence that natural selection is also speeding up, then my concern is resolved, and thank you Ringer, SMF, Signor Skepticus and others for posting those links.

 

2. Traditional natural selection necessitates that all humans must die within an absolute, pre-determined period (80-120 years). This, too, started to become contrary to near-term futuristic thinking. If humans could continue to evolve by processes other than traditional natural selection (say, through technology, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology or whatever) then this lifespan limit could be lifted and these individuals could start experiencing progressively longer lifespans.

[SMF]

Steevey, you say:

 

The article that stated that in the last 650 years, the skulls of human populations have changed, while you seemed to be arguing that different genomes are more expressed rather than different genes being created and assimilated into the human race.

 

If you are referring to the BBC article you linked, I did not say anything of the kind (this is getting very frustrating). I did say that no actual scientific evidence, that the skull changes were related to evolutionary processes, was presented. Because the evolutionary assertion is so unlikely I suggested possible alternative explanations. There was no reference to an actual published scientific study in the article that might have some further explanation and I couldn't find one on my own. If you wish to argue this, please provide a scientific reference. A BBC human interest piece by itself is not science, so without support it is just opinion. If you wish to argue about science, you have to actually talk about science.

 

 

Mrs Zeta, you say:

 

My primary focus is on human (i.e. not on any other organism) evolution by natural selection. I believe that some human population sub-groups may be able to adapt and evolve, by processes other than natural selection.

 

I have two concerns here:

 

1. Traditional natural selection is a slow process. This is contrary to some modern or near-term futuristic theories claiming that technology, evolution, development and other processes will progressively speed up, in order to achieve more and more, in less and less time. But if there is evidence that natural selection is also speeding up, then my concern is resolved, and thank you Ringer, SMF, Signor Skepticus and others for posting those links.

 

2. Traditional natural selection necessitates that all humans must die within an absolute, pre-determined period (80-120 years). This, too, started to become contrary to near-term futuristic thinking. If humans could continue to evolve by processes other than traditional natural selection (say, through technology, artificial intelligence, synthetic biology or whatever) then this lifespan limit could be lifted and these individuals could start experiencing progressively longer lifespans.

 

1. Natural selection is not slow; it operates in a single generation on single individuals. Evolution can be very slow, especially in large populations, but when there is a small founder population that is reproductively isolated it can be quite fast. Both natural selection and evolutionary theory are not contrary to some futuristic theory. They are just a description of a collection of natural mechanisms. All the theory does is to describe the rules for what happens following a variety of factors. The rules are self-evident (e.g. if you die before you create young, your genes don't get passed on). For the future I presume you are referring to the possibility that some forms of natural selection will become less potent, and genetic mutation will become more controlled. This is not a competing theory.

 

2. Traditional natural selection and evolutionary theory do not necessitate anything. There are no time limits. The basic components of evolutionary theory at play are exactly the same for all species, so your emphasis on humans relative to evolutionary mechanisms is meaningless. If the age that members of a snail species can achieve was artificially increased to 300 years, this would result in an increase in the population. From this point on, how ongoing selection pressures on the snail might be altered as the result of the population increase is an ecological question. Human ecology includes the output of our big fat brains.

 

I strongly suggest that you find two (for perspective) practicing evolutionary biologists to talk to. Practicing means that they are actively doing research. A friendly back and forth regarding evolutionary theory would very quickly help you with your misconceptions and help you present your futuristic ideas more clearly.

 

SM

Edited February 26, 2011 by SMF

[steevey]

Steevey, you say:

 

 

 

If you are referring to the BBC article you linked, I did not say anything of the kind (this is getting very frustrating). I did say that no actual scientific evidence, that the skull changes were related to evolutionary processes, was presented. Because the evolutionary assertion is so unlikely I suggested possible alternative explanations. There was no reference to an actual published scientific study in the article that might have some further explanation and I couldn't find one on my own. If you wish to argue this, please provide a scientific reference. A BBC human interest piece by itself is not science, so without support it is just opinion. If you wish to argue about science, you have to actually talk about science.

 

 

Well, theres this for starters http://www.nytimes.c...ce/26human.html and then theres http://www.newscient...d-recently.html

But, evolution takes a long time as these articles show, so the only reason evolution would "appear" to be slowing down is because it takes observably longer than an individual human life time. There could be 10s or 100s of different genes evolving right now that we don't know about because it takes so long for them to show up in large populations.

Edited February 27, 2011 by steevey

[Marat]

There are many factors influencing evolution outside the obvious biological ones. Artificial social rules about proper mate selection will favor some developments while slowing others (e.g, red-haired people are becoming more scarce.) Social artifacts will be introduced into evolution by the fact that intelligent people who carefully map out their life plans and respond to the stagnating wages of the middle class in most developed economies will have far fewer children than others will. Perhaps the Gaia movement, some of whose members maintain that humanity should undergo voluntary extinction so that we don't interfere with the natural life of chipmunks and the cleanness of fresh mountain streams, will eventually weed idiots out of the gene pool.

[steevey]

eventually weed idiots out of the gene pool.

 

A person's intelligence isn't based on their genes, its based on how much effort they actually put into taking in more knowledge or becoming a better person, which at any moment in an idiot's life, they could do more of.

Edited February 27, 2011 by steevey

[SMF]

Steevey, I have asked you repeatedly to defend the BBC article and other questionable assertions, but you continue to change the subject and continue to offer more unlikely opinions, such as intelligence not having a genetic component. On a science site this is trolling behavior. I, for one, don’t think that feeding the trolls is a good practice. SM

 

 

[StrontiDog]

A person's intelligence isn't based on their genes, its based on how much effort they actually put into taking in more knowledge or becoming a better person, which at any moment in an idiot's life, they could do more of.

 

Not really, Steevey.

 

Intelligence has been fairly well demonstrated to be a Continuous Genetic Trait.

 

In short, it is inherited (though there is a fair amount of disagreement as to how much) but it is also affected by environmental factors. Let's face it, if Einstein's mother was an alcoholic when he was in-utero, we'd have probably never heard about him.

 

Intelligence is a little like height. An offspring can be taller than both parents, or shorter, or somewhere in between. But other factors such as prenatal care, toxins in the environment and diet can make a big difference in how tall the individual eventually gets.

 

The same goes with smarts. What you're describing is more like education, which is completely acquired. This whole argument about 'Nature vs. Nurture' has consistently puzzled me. The answer has always seemed to be obvious.

 

It's both.

 

Bill Wolfe

[SMF]

StrontiDog. In support of your statement, the simple formula from the behavioral genetics course I took mumbledemumble years ago was P = G X E (Phenotype equals Genes times Environment). SM

[steevey]

Not really, Steevey.

 

Intelligence has been fairly well demonstrated to be a Continuous Genetic Trait.

 

In short, it is inherited (though there is a fair amount of disagreement as to how much) but it is also affected by environmental factors. Let's face it, if Einstein's mother was an alcoholic when he was in-utero, we'd have probably never heard about him.

 

Intelligence is a little like height. An offspring can be taller than both parents, or shorter, or somewhere in between. But other factors such as prenatal care, toxins in the environment and diet can make a big difference in how tall the individual eventually gets.

 

The same goes with smarts. What you're describing is more like education, which is completely acquired. This whole argument about 'Nature vs. Nurture' has consistently puzzled me. The answer has always seemed to be obvious.

 

It's both.

 

Bill Wolfe

 

Your not born knowing everything your going to learn in your life. You learn things as you go along, and at least 99.99 percent of the living human population has the ability to learn, so the notion that people should be killed off due to lack of knowledge is absurd. The ability to learn or process information however varies usually slightly from person to person, but its also affiliated with your habits. A person who engages in certain thinking methods more often will typically be able to think in those ways more efficiently than someone who doesn't. People who tend to not use their brain at all will also have a decrease in learning abilities, but that can change if they get into a habit of learning and using their brain again.

There isn't a known way to completely eliminate any targeted gene from a person's body either, so the capacity for an extreme learning disability or mental retardation will likely be around for a while.

Edited March 2, 2011 by steevey

[StrontiDog]

StrontiDog. In support of your statement, the simple formula from the behavioral genetics course I took mumbledemumble years ago was P = G X E (Phenotype equals Genes times Environment). SM

 

Makes sense for most things. I don't see environment making much difference in (innate) eye color, and a few other things.

 

But as a rule of thumb, it works.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Wolfe

[SMF]

Bill. Some explanation. G and E don't have to be equal, but both are necessary. A very important part of our environment, that we are not usually aware of, occurs during prenatal development. For example, eye color depends upon melanin genes, but the cells that make the melanin arise in the neural crest and have to migrate to the iris. This process requires a very particular environment with a timed series of cellular interactions. If the fetal environment is disturbed the whole eye may not form, or form normally, even though the genes involved in this process are perfectly normal. SM