|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2002 : 22:32:33 [Permalink]
|
I think there is something to the idea that we are arresting human evolution. We sure are doing our best to eliminate the main engines of natural selection. It will be interesting to see what we can do about our newest problem - debilitation in old age.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2002 : 07:34:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think there is something to the idea that we are arresting human evolution. We sure are doing our best to eliminate the main engines of natural selection. It will be interesting to see what we can do about our newest problem - debilitation in old age. [PhDreamer]
In a word, ROBOTICS. I'm amazed by the quantum leap in the proliferation and functionality of transplants, implants, joint replacements and prosthesis. I dare say in the not to distant future, the "old folks" will be trading complaints about how good or bad their chip implants are working. If a joint or a limb is not working well, simply replace it with the latest in teflon/titanium/plastic medical technology. We're not going to wait for evolution, we're simply going to find a technical "upgrade" for it.
(:raig |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2002 : 08:17:15 [Permalink]
|
Ah, but Mespo,
Could not one strech a bit toward the sci-fi end and consider this yet another driving force behind evolution? That is to say, keeping a lot of tough, dirty, old men's genes in the pool?
The soon to be bionic (hip & knee), filthy
"They will take away my Darwin Fish only when they pry it from my cold, dead bumper!" |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2002 : 09:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Could not one strech a bit toward the sci-fi end and consider this yet another driving force behind evolution? [filthy]
Well, you'd have to re-define evolution; biological evolution, anyway. We're not creating new genes through a natural selection process. Gene-splicing isn't natural unless it closely mimics mutation processes. I don't know enough biology to answer that. If you stretch the definition of evolution to include the intellectual thought process as natural, well then, I suppose you could make a case for natural selection.
I would use the word "devolution" to describe human genetic engineering to date. We are striving to remove or nullify the bad genes that lead to certain types of genetic diseases and malformations. On the medical / mechanical front, we are removing diseased organs, limbs and tissues before they kill the host. The biggest strides in this area are the replacements then, with synthetic parts or closely matched donor tissues.
Many, many lab animals will die before we reach a competent level of human genetic manipulation. So, my SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess) is that mechanical improvements for the human body will hold sway for the near term, while biological improvements are still several generations off.
"Hey doc, are you sure you got the "oink" out of this pig's heart before you put it in me?"
(:raig |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2002 : 11:29:14 [Permalink]
|
While we've certainly interrupted some of the "culling" aspects of natural selection (without these coke-bottle glasses I'd have wandered off a cliff decades ago), there are still some mechanisms working -- sexual selection, for example.
However, it seems that we've mostly moved from evolving our genes to evolving our memes. Perhaps a new sort of selection process is in action on those. But if so, why are Hovind and Ham around?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2002 : 12:11:51 [Permalink]
|
I'm not so sure.
It looks to me like, and I have a mechanical background, so it colors my opinions, a artifical organ like a mechanicl pump for a heart would be a great advantage over a transplant, assuming that the technology is perfected. My immune system is not at all bothered by the load of odd metal I'm carrying around.
I really can't buy 'de-evolution'. I don't think Evolution is going toward any sort of a goal. If a form were to evolve into a simpler form, it would have done so because it was advantageous for it to do so. Please don't ask for examples, I don't have any, just thoughts.
Wait! I got one, sorta! Lizards into snakes. But is that de-evolution?
No. Snakes lost their legs, but gained an incredibly strong and supple body, and Duvenoy's organ (all snakes have it, but in only some 3000 species does it produce venom).
Speculation on where we, or any species, are going, Evolution-wise can be little more than an intellectual excersize. Due to our influence, different forces are working. Dogs, for example.
If humans were to suddenly vanish (don't ask me how), feral dogs would quickly weed out the unfit amongst them. The result would probably be a large, very tough animal who's genes would ultimatly become a stable pool. I think it would be preditor to compete on a level with wolves. I further think that it would look a lot like a German Shepard (which looks a bit like a wolf to start with). This would be Evolution running on nitro-methane. But would the dog be evolving backward?
Today, we modify our bodies with everything from tattoos and piercings, to transplant surgry. This last has the ability to prolong out lives. Therefore, the male of our species has the ability, sometimes with the aid of Viagra, to reproduce well after he should be dead. And females have also, artificalley extended their fertility period. Therefore, their genes will have a slightly higher percentage in the pool - for example, Strom Thurmond. I 'spect he's still randy lying in his hospital bed at almost 100 years old.
Everybody can't take advantage of this technology. So, are some of us, like the minature poodles, being gradually, if not consciencely, culled out?
This is all just ramdom thoughts. Please forgive any inconsistancies (and spelling).
Individuals cannot evolve, only populations. Therefore, it follows that the forces that
move Evolution do not have to be the same for each species.
f (Hoping that this is more than gibberish)
"They will take away my Darwin Fish only when they pry it from my cold, dead bumper!" |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 11:39:56 [Permalink]
|
The Idea that human evolution could be over and some of the stuff in the article belies a astonishing ignorance of what evoulution really is.
1. There is no such thing as an evoulution towards a goal or something like that. It is completly random. You don't evolve to perfection as many people seem to think. Unless you belive in some sort of mystical guiding force there is no aim for evoultion. And things are not further or better evolved then others.
2. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the timescale involved.
3. Just because we have diminshed the influence of some factors of natural selection does not mean that we are now completly free of all of them.
4. Natural selection is not the only force behind evoulution.
5. Our brains, our minds, our society and our science is not something completly seperated from evolution. It is has emerged as a part of it. The ability to create a vaccine is a result of human evolution (partly through natural selection) just like any other human feature.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 12:37:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Idea that human evolution could be over and some of the stuff in the article belies a astonishing ignorance of what evoulution really is.
1. There is no such thing as an evoulution towards a goal or something like that. It is completly random. You don't evolve to perfection as many people seem to think. Unless you belive in some sort of mystical guiding force there is no aim for evoultion. And things are not further or better evolved then others.
2. There seems to be some misunderstanding of the timescale involved.
3. Just because we have diminshed the influence of some factors of natural selection does not mean that we are now completly free of all of them.
4. Natural selection is not the only force behind evoulution.
5. Our brains, our minds, our society and our science is not something completly seperated from evolution. It is has emerged as a part of it. The ability to create a vaccine is a result of human evolution (partly through natural selection) just like any other human feature.
I've wondered where some people get their misunderstanding that evolution has a goal. Watched Trek the other night. They seem to imply that evolution is goal oriented in improving the species. I think a lot of popular science fiction tends to promote this misconception of evolution. Unfortunately, most people tend to glean a lot of their information from popular culture rather than formal (or even informal) education.
As for misunderstanding the timescale involved, how many of us can really conceive of 4.5 billion years? It's mind boggling.
The other thing is though, that many creationists think/believe that by messing with the genetic code that humans are now playing god. We, by studying genetics and learning to manipulate our own genetic information, are esentially usurping the position as creator that most religious persons have assigned to god. Humans have begun to take control of their evolutionary course and unfortunately because of the 'mad scientist' or 'Dr. Frankenstein' scenarios they fear what has been horribly misrepresented.
---
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2002 : 18:07:50 [Permalink]
|
I was actually discussing a similar idea a few months ago with a good friend of mine who pointed out that we, with our medicine and science, are allowing more people to live, thus preserving biodiversity. This has the net effect of helping evolution, not hindering it. More babies are given the opportunity to survive and procreate, effectively widening the gene pool. Since, as Trish, Lars, etc, have pointed out, evolution has no "goal," it is only a process of biological change, the only thing we can do is maintain a higher population count to allow a larger variety of humans to survive and produce offspring. This aids the evolutionary process.
-me. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
