BusaDave9

I'm thinking that natural selection isn't as prevalent in humans as wild animals. Do you believe Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium disproves this? I'm not so sure. The Hardy-Weinberg principle says allele and genotype frequencies will remain constant but there are five important assumptions. One is that there is an infinite population. (human population on earth is huge). Another assumption is that there is no natural selection. I'm proposing that humans are affected less by natural selection than animals. Then you go on to list all kinds of evolutionary influences ... That's quite a list. As you've said "it's complicated". But none of that matters! I'm sure lots of people think about all these evolutionary forces and think this is topic is too complicated to pass judgement on. Many of us, myself included have talked about these other evolutionary forces but they really don't address the topic. I'm saying humans are affected less by natural selection than wild animals. The reason I say none of these evolutionary influences matter is because I'm talking about natural selection while you are listing evolutionary forces that are NOT natural selection. The Hardy-Weinberg principle has an assumption that there is no natural selection. How can that be used as an argument for or against my position?

Do blind and deaf people reproduce less than the average person? I don't know. But when we compare humans to wild animals, I'd think it would be very rare for another large mammal to make it to reproductive age if they were blind or deaf. I find biologists believe that natural selection in the presence of mutations is the largest driving factor in animal evolution. On the other hand, no one want to speculate if natural selection is the largest driving factor in human evolution. I can understand that. If other traits are evolving in humans that may be much of the reason it's hard to speculate if natural selection is less prominent in humans as compared to wild animals. But I must remind people that I am NOT saying natural selection has ceased to operate in humans.

Again you are lying. You put it in quotes so I searched to see if I misspoke. No, I never said that. If you lie, lie, lie. Don't be surprised if I don't notice if you eventually do tell the truth. I will be ignoring your posts from here on out.

Good points. Let me answer. Animals do selectively go after specific prey, eliminating them wherever they can find them. You talk about "genocide on continental scales" but only humans populate every country in the world. When some animals try to kill every one of a specific species, do you call that genocide? Sure you were talking about genocide within the human race. Many animals try to kill off an entire species whenever they encounter them. But you don't call it genocide when a species tries to kill another species. We don't need to compare the evolutionary mechanisms between animals and humans. We only need to compare the results. Because we can control our environment, we and control our food supply and our survival. The vast majority of modern humans survive for these reasons.

I never once said human evolution has stopped. This is a lie. As I have indicated before, I will not respond to people that lie about what I have said. I am looking for an honest discussion. If you are wrong, I don't mind. If you lie I will not respond.

Correct, I am uninterested in the bald fact that nearly half the human lifespan is beyond the reproductive stage. I don't care if they lived to 105 years old. All that matters is if they pass their genes off to the next generation and that usually happens when someone is in their 20s or 30s. I believe natural selection is not as prevalent in human evolution as in animals. I don't think I said "evolution that happens in modern humans isn’t due to natural selection" but if I did I misspoke. If I found few examples of human evolution due to natural selection and lots of examples of animal evolution. This would take a huge collection of evolutionary data to say natural selection is less prevalent in humans. Is this a scientific publication or an internet forum?

Thanks, that was interesting but to be honest I haven't really done any research beyond reading what you've posted. Maybe I'll find time after work. My thesis is that natural selection does not affect modern human evolution as much as with wild animals. You want examples? If I found few examples of human evolution due to natural selection and lots of examples of animal evolution would that be what you want? I'm just interested in the conversation. I see lots of people surviving even with major genetic deficiencies such as blindness and deafness. I believe animals with these same problems would never reach reproductive age. I realize people with genetic disability "also contribute to the width of the gene pool in other respects". That's true but they also pass on blindness and deafness.

Breasts are an interesting example of human evolution due to reproductive success. Sexual attraction is the main reason women have breasts from puberty to death. Sure breasts are used to nurse infants but that is a very small percentage of their lives. Think about this: no other animal, not even apes, bonobos and chimpanzees, our closest relatives have breasts until they have a baby and start to lactate. Guys love breasts. That's why women have them even when they are not lactating. Guys look at breasts and think "I want to have babies with her!" and they are NOT thinking "They would be able to feed our baby nicely. Okay but seriously, I don't think this plays a big part when we are seriously looking for a wife. When guys are young they are just out to have fun and are attracted to breasts.

One example of human evolution that I've been thinking about lately is Lactase Persistence. All baby mammals drink milk. Lactose is hard to digest. Mammal babies make the enzyme lactase to digest milk. As the mammals grow they stop making the enzyme lactase. We humans have evolved to continue making this enzyme. I wonder how this came about. Do you think this was natural selection? Do you think people drank milk, some died and no one made the connection until enough people died to evolve. I don't know but I'll listen to opinions. True, in general, the larger the animal the fewer offspring. We'd have to do the comparison with other large animals. I talked about this earlier and pointed out that spiders may lay hundreds of eggs at a time. Agreed. I have used examples of finding food and a broken bone is a death sentence for a deer or many other animals. I think the majority of the examples apply more to animals than humans. Can you think of any examples of natural selection that affect humans more than animals. I realize there are lots of examples but I think living in the wild is harder than living in civilization. I know the difference. I've talked about both. The post you quoted me I talked about natural selection. Then when I talked about reproductive success I said "Next lets look at ..." as I changed the topic. In wild animals I think the main driving force for evolution is natural selection but mutations must be present. Do you think reproductive success is the main driving force for human evolution? I don't know but I don't think so. I think everyone can have a couple offspring. Since we have such a high survival rate people may decide to have 2 children, expecting both to survive. Animals have as many as possible without realizing the link between sex and offspring. Is genetic drift the main driving force for human evolution? I very much doubt that.

This incel culture is a very minor. When compared to animals we are far more likely to pass on our genes to the next generation. 200 years ago people would have 8 children but most would not make it to adulthood. Wild animals have it worse than that. So what's the main driving force for human evolution if not reproductive success? Natural selection? I don't think so. Genetic drift? I don't think so. Most say it's too complicated to give an answer. Some admit human evolution is much different than for animals. Some say I am wrong without even giving an opinion.

In modern times we don't need to be good hunters or be able to find food in the forest. That is not the survival of modern man. If you work hard at school you can become an accountant and make a good living. Next lets look at someone that has learning disabilities and doesn't do good in school. He has a low IQ and drops out of school. His future doesn't look good. Many would call him a failure in today's society. But he's not a failure biologically. Everyone has a chance to have children even those in the bottom rungs of the social ladder. This is what I mean when I say it's not the survival of the fittest for humans. It's survival of everyone. Almost everyone can have more children than we want. Instead we practice family planning. Our children are expected to reach adulthood at a vastly greater rate than animals in the wild. If you don't have a job in most parts of the world the government will help you. There are also charities. But you'll still be able to pass your genes on to the next generation.

For sexual selection in humans I think there is strong preference, especially in men. Men are more likely to be attracted to specific women for esthetic reasons. This is especially true for teen agers and into the 20's. At those ages people are more likely to be just out having fun. But then again, humans are the only species that practices birth control. As people mature they are not looking for such superficial traits. I don't have any statistics but I don't think beautiful people have any more children than ugly people. Across the world people now have about 2.2 children per couple. (1.6 in the USA) This is because people can plan their families. Now if you don't mind I'd like to generalize. You can always point to specific bird species and say they have developed such a bright colorful plumage that it attracts predators and is a detriment to survival. I don't think we need to analyze the evolutionary balancing act between birds attracting mates and avoiding predators. The viewpoint I am explaining is to compare driving forces in human evolution compared to wild animals. To generalize, I believe the main driving force in wild animals is natural selection (mutations must be present). You can certainly find exceptions in specific animals. In humans I don't think natural selection (AKA survival of the fittest) applies nearly as much as of a driving force in human evolution. What is the main driving force in human evolution? I don't know, but I'd love to hear the opinions of others. Of course the rate of evolution isn't the same for all species. I never said anything similar to that. I never said anything like this. I never said "A is imperfect and therefore has a lower chance of survival to reproduce or take one factor in isolation." I never said I measured "'success' by how long has a species survived" I have been ignoring many of your posts because you don't even seem to be paying attention.

My point is I believe natural selection is the main driving force for evolution in wild animals. I also believe natural selection plays a small part in the evolution of humans. This is the biggest difference between human and animal evolution.

Thank you. You are the first person to admit evolution is much different for humans than wild animals. You go from "you don't understand evolution" to "you're stating the obvious". What are the implications? At first you'd think humans are evolving at a much slower rate than wild animals but that doesn't seem to be the case. What's driving human evolution if not natural selection? Read my very first post and tell me what wasn't clear.

Comments like this make me realize you are not even paying attention to what I am saying. Opposable thumbs (which evolved millions of years ago) are arguably necessary for our technology (of today)

I'll go so far as to say survival of the fittest affects us less that any other animal. Everyone is expected to survive today. It's a far different situation for wild animals.

@swansont how many of your children have been eaten by wolves before they grew up? Do you have many friends that have died from a broken leg because they couldn't run from predators or collect food? How many do you know that have starved because they had a hard time opening nuts or coconuts? The answer to the above questions is probably zero because you are human. If we could ask the same questions to deer or other animals they'd have a much different answer. As I said before, It's no longer survival of the fittest for humans. It's survival of everyone. My point is we humans have a tremendous advantage in modern times. Actually it started with the advent of civilization. Before that we were hunters and gatherers. All other animals besides humans are hunters and gatherers. I have to use that term loosely when talking about the simplest animals. What I mean to say is all animals besides humans must find their food locally, where they can walk, crawl, swim or fly. With the advent of farming and raising livestock we made it far more likely to have a constant supply of food. Sure droughts can still be a problem for food supply but even then we have a vast advantage over wild animals. We use transportation to bring food from the fields to the people, originally this transportation was just a 2 wheeled cart. Regarding what I said about nuts and coconuts. Obviously no human will starve, let alone evolve, because they can't open nuts or coconuts. Most animals have a very limited diet of what they eat. Even for an omnivore we have an extremely diverse diet. Do you want nuts? How about pistachios from Turkey or Iran? Many foods are a delicacy because we like variety. If someone can't get enough food it's not because they are not good at hunting or extracting the food from plants. People starve because they don't have a good job. Jobs earn you money so you can buy food and other things. We humans now live in a different environment than wild animals. In much of the world if you can't find the means to buy food the government will help. If lots of people are starving in a remote corner of the planet we fly in humanitarian aid. This is unique to humans. I never brought up opposable thumbs. That's an advantage we had long before civilization. I'm talking about advantages since then. The greatest advantages have been with recent technologies and it keeps increasing. Two hundred years ago a couple might have had 8 kids but only 5 survived to adulthood. Those odds are much worse for animals living in the wild. Now babies are expected to survive to adulthood, even if they are blind, deaf or have some other major genetic defect. Our fatality rate is VASTLY better than wild animals.

I really don't care which is more advanced and neither does evolution.

True. The more advanced animals nurture their young longer than more primitive animals. A spider may lay several hundred eggs at once. Needless to say the vast majority of them never make it to maturity.

Fair enough but I think many of your responses are not appropriate for the point I'm trying to get across. For example you said "Humans aren’t the only species that use tools. Do we discount evolution in those other species? Ours doesn’t count because we are less likely to drink bad water?" I didn't think that mattered because we don't have to be the only animal that uses tools. I'm just saying we have a vast survival advantage. Then your response was "You mentioned technology without going into details. I’m trying to discern where you draw the line." Again, I don't think it matters exactly where we draw the line. Maybe partially because of technological advantages. Maybe partially because of societal advantages. Again I'm just saying we have a vast survival advantage.

Modern science is great. People with major and minor disabilities can still live productive lives up to and beyond the reproductive age. Society also gives us a major advantage. We no longer have any natural predators. "Oh no no no. You can't say that without first analyzing all the driving factors and nuances of evolution." "A genetic defect in one environment can be neutral, or a genetic advantage, in another environment." "You need to statically analyze the line between a technological advantage and a societal advantage." If a blind person had a 2% better chance than a wolf surviving in the wild then yes, we would need to dig deep in the science to find an explanation. With the statics I've cited there is a tremendous difference between human survival and animals in the wild. Look at how many people have a major genetic defect and are still fully expected to survive to reproductive age. Globally, about 0.5% of the world's population is completely blind. That's one in 200. Does anyone really think that 0.5% of wild animals are blind? Don't bring up some mole. Lets talk about large mammals. Do you think 0.5% of all deer, bear, wolves, hippos etc. are blind and still survive to reproductive age? The survival advantage of us humans is TREMENDOUS compared to wild animals. I don't mean to offend anyone. I don't want to come off as abrasive.

Sure there are animals that live in complete darkness that are totally blind. They don't need sight. A falcon needs to have excellent eyesight. Sure there are many factors that drive evolution. Evolution is a complex topic. But I think some of my questions that no one want's to answer are that complex. For example lets talk about Australopithecus afarensis that lived 3 million years ago. Do you think that 16% of them had a significant disability? How about major genetic defects. I don't know what genetic defects Australopithecus might have had. Modern humans with these genetic defects are still expected to live to adulthood: Down syndrome Angelman syndrome Klinefelter syndrome Thalassemia Do you think just as many Australopithecans had genetic defects like these? Do you think .5% of Australopithecenes were blind? Just your guess or opinion. I say these major defect are much more common in modern man than Australopithecus afarensis or any modern animal living in the wild.

I don't have an attitude. I'm enjoying the conversation. What about these facts? 16% of the world's population—experience a significant disability. Do you think a wolf, deer or jellyfish could make it to reproductive age with a significant disability? I would think blindness or deafness would count as a significant disability. From what I have seen with my own two eyes I know deafness thrives in humans. Would you agree with that statement? Nearly 70% of American adults require some form of vision correction. I realize many of those people need only a slight correction to their eyesight. But still, modern science can do amazing work. We can make people see that would otherwise be legally blind. People walk with prosthetic legs. People use wheelchairs. I could go on and on about people with significant disabilities that easily reach reproductive age. Can you say the same percentages of wild animals survive with these disabilities? Answer this question. It's key to my argument. If you say "yes, just as many wild animals thrive with blindness or deafness or lost limbs as humans." That's fine. That's your opinion. At least it would show a willingness to engage in discussion.

Straw man argument. I never said because of tools alone we can discount human evolution. I never even said we can discount human evolution. I know humans are evolving. Even during the last couple thousand years of recorded history there are many examples of human evolution. 2000 years is practically an instant in evolutionary time. I realize the mechanics of evolution in humans is the same as in animals. There are lots of causes of evolution. I just don't think the main driving forces of evolution in animals is just as strong as in humans. For example, in animals I think the main driving force in evolution is natural selection. But that only works in conjunction with mutations. Mutations provide variation and natural selection gives evolution direction. Mutations are mainly random and therefore do not provide direction. I don't want to put words into anyone's mouth but do you think natural selection is just as strong of an evolutionary force in humans as in wild animals? If so that's a legitimate opinion. Maybe you think genetic drift is most prevalent in humans. Maybe people just want to have more babies with people that are attractive or wealthy. (I sure don't believe that) No one has really offered any opinion on this topic except to say my opinion is wrong.

"Deafness and blindness, etc. aren’t necessarily heritable traits." That's true but when it's genetic people can still survive to adulthood. When deafness and blindness are caused by accidents, people can still survive to adulthood. Either way humans survive. Humans have been evolving for more than a million years. Back then we've evolving closer to the way wild animals have. Both society and technologies have made humans much more likely to reach reproductive age than wild animals.