Mrs Zeta

Although I believe in conventional, traditional science I am also open minded (just like some people here - not all though). So, tell us about it...

Perhaps homosexuality will increase, and this is not just due to society making it easier for existing homosexuals to publicly declare their sexuality. It may be possible that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and homosexuality, but I haven't got any data to support this (although it makes evolutionary sense in a way).

This reminds me of memes. Terms or ideas spreading through communication etc etc...

Have a lobotomy if you wish, or just actively try to see the good points in life, ignore the problems and pain, work to relieve suffering and find pleasure in small 'insignificant' things such as enjoying a glass of cool water. There is no other Heaven....

The idea of shifting from one universe to another has been discussed here. It is a long post (like yours) and has some interesting concepts which some people actually believe in.

An Archbishop once told me that Heaven and Hell exist only in one's mind during life. If you have a tormented, hateful, distructive mind you are already in Hell. If you are happy, loving and forgiving you are already in Heaven.

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.

Of course, all the discussion about genes may not be that relevant. What is important, I think, is the expression of these genes. Until recently, if a gene could not express say, a factor such as tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) then the person would be at a disadvantage if (s)he had a heart attack (blood would clot easily, causing a worsening of the condition and possible death). Today this is not important because your hospital pharmacist can provide a shot of recombinant tPA, the mainstream treatment for thrombolysis. The same with insulin. Until several decades ago, if your genes could not (eventually) produce insulin you were done for. Now it is possible to by-pass the genetic problem by popping down to your local pharmacist and buying some insulin. So, any genetic defects that would have been detrimental in the wild are now slowly becoming irrelevant. Technology is by-passing the process of natural selection.

Some medical doctors save lives all the time, yet are not considered heroes. I have seen reports about children being termed 'heroes' because they saved the life of their parent by calling the emergency services. And similar reports about dogs. I find this amusing. I grew up with mythological stories about 'true' heroes like Hercules, Titan etc. or stories about rare individuals who fought for liberty for their country. But dogs, children, professionals who are paid to do the job? It could be a basic psychological need for society to have heroes around to look up to, so when really (truly) deserving individuals are missing, anyone will do.

For some comprehensive discussion of the diferent issues see here: http://lifeboat.com/ex/asteroid.shield

I find it interesting that the editorial 'we' is also used in scientific journals in other languages. For sure in Italian and Greek that I know of. It is a polite way to avoid claiming all the credit for something, where others may have contributed indirectly.

I think I should clarify that the title of this discussion should be: "The End of Darwinian Evolution.. For Some". What I want to discuss is the possibility that people who are now exposed to the demands/benefits of our increasingly technological society, may be subjected to new evolutionary pressures. See here for my blog: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/Mrs_Zeta/2011/02/16/hello-world/. The ethical questions are of enormous significance and are discussed by others elsewhere. But, I find the above discussion and comments very interesting and constructive, on the whole.

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.

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......

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.

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.

I wonder where the perception that sexy blond women are generally dumb, and ugly scruffy scientists are generally geniuses comes from. Also, what is the evolutionary advantage of dorky (socially inept) teenagers who are computer geniuses. Prove me wrong, show me a beautiful computer hacker.

No, not in animals but in humans. I know a lot of ugly men who don't try to improve their appearance. They still manage to get married and have (ugly) children. In the case of humans, I think there is a tradeoff between appearance and intelligence.

There is a world of difference between flies and men. It would be interesting to see any human studies. Also, I would love to see studies correlating male or female attractivenes and intelligence (animal or human results will do).

Consider that external manipulation of the environment (through technology in some cases) has epigenetic effects that can be inheritable. So this is one way that technology may have an effect on genetics.

Selenum is a well established antioxidant and was found to be beneficial in cancer in laboratory experiments. Its benefit on human cancer in everyday situations has not been proved beyond doubt. I have seen many people who have been taking selenium daily for years and have not reported any significant side effects.

Well, for the first time in human history we have now access to technology that may help us manipulate our own evolution. Our DNA may be changed by developments in synthetic biology (see, for example the Repressilator), or by nanotechnology. The fact that we are now discussing the possibility of a Global Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_brain) is IMO indicative of a new possible way of how we as humans will develop. There is quite a lot of material available on synthetic biology and its impact on evolutiion, the global brain and other technological advances that may have relevance to our evolution. Transhumanism believes that we may be able to evolve, through technology, into 'post-humans' (see terms in wikipedia, or contact me for references), who would hardly have any biological tissues left. I don't personally agree with this but the discussion is there. Also I believe that we will be able to live far longer than the current maximum lifespan of around 120 years (see https://acrobat.com/#d=MAgyT1rkdwono-lQL6thBQ).

Flow is, as you said, based on a demanding task, frequent reinforcement and a highten awareness. This is what happens when I walk the streets. This is out habit, because my two dogs eat anything they can find while walking with me, so I constantly scan the pavements to prevent them from eating any small bones etc. I didn't think that your explanation about clowns etc was particularly great either. Just an update, since I started this post I begun to also find banknotes! Not every day, but maybe once a week. Last time I found a banknote before this was in 1986. See if you can explain this!

Platelets are essential in blood clotting. They clump together in order to initiate the blood clotting steps, by reacting with fibrinogen. Vitamin K is also needed. The resulting fibrin/platelet mesh traps red blood cells and forms the clot. Agents that inhibit platelets from forming a clot (such as aspirin) are used to prevent abnormal clotting within a blood vessel that can lead to a stroke or heart attack. However, the coagulation cascade is much more complicated and finely tuned. For a rather good summary see wikipedia (coagulation)

If you are mainly based in the UK, you can have a look at the Open University courses (http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/science/index.htm). These are distance learning courses, which allow you a certain flexibility. The courses are fun and very interesting if you are committed but you need to choose the right ones. The resulting degree is recognised as a normal university degree.