1 hour ago, CharonY said:

If a trait does not cause negative selection, because any negative reproductive effects are eliminated, then by definition it is not a "bad" trait in the context of evolution. And it matters not if that was caused by technology or anything else. For example, animals that do not rely on eyesight have no positive selection for maintaining eyesight. The consequence could be reduction of this ability without it having (by definition) any impact on reproductive success. The same goes for correcting eye issues, even if they are genetic. They are not negative traits, in an evolutionary context. It all relates to the common misconception that somehow evolution makes us stronger, yet in nature there is no such concept.

Also disabilities are a bit of a value judgement, though it might feel counterintuitive. The reason is that because in order to define them, we define a baseline which we consider to be "able". But the issue is that this is a value judgement. In biology there are just different phenotypes.

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.

7 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that over 1.3 billion people—about 16% of the world's population—experience a significant disability.

Yes, and?

Evolution is differential reproductive success, so if you have a disability but are past the age where you reproduce, the effect you have on the gene pool isn’t the same as if you’re younger, and (again) a disability is not necessarily heritable. You can’t lump everything together as this simple citation does.

3 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

How about major genetic defects. I don't know what genetic defects Australopithecus might have had.

A genetic defect in one environment can be neutral, or a genetic advantage, in another environment.

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.

2 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

I’m not sure if offended is the right word, but quoting responses as if they were rebuttals to a different argument or comment is certainly off-putting.

If you think that’s what the responses were addressing I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Otherwise it’s not something you can call a good-faith exchange.

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.

Edited Saturday at 10:36 PM3 days by BusaDave9

Seems like one of those chats where adaptation and reproductive success is confused with fitness. Increased pre and post natal care and longevity can shift the locus of adaptation. Visual impairment no longer increases (p) for being eaten by predators or falling off cliffs, but it might shift the adaptive importance of cognitive skills for nuanced interpretation of sense data or social intelligence by making them figure more prominently in reproductive success. Or, an inability to eat meat after getting a tick bite, formerly a negative trait in adapting as a hunter-gatherer might later become selectively neutral where diets shift to plant-based.

There is no objective metric of "fitness" or "strength," there is only an environment and its changes driving the adaptive needs. A longterm decline in human food sources and livable land areas could result in a planet-wide version of insular dwarfism where being the size of Peter Dinklage could become positively adaptive as they endured food scarcity better. An ecological shift where large apex predators disappeared might also further this, as size and long legs for running was no longer as important to survival.

If one were to speculate on shifting adaptive pressures in modern urban civilization it might be towards a neurological capacity to handle high-stimulation environments and extremely loud and multilayered soundscapes. Or, then again, some broad cultural innovation could make all that irrelevant and then adaptation would take a different direction. And there's always the wild card of sexual selection where particular aesthetics can come into play and change the reproductive advantage of certain phenotypic expressions that would formerly have no role in survival or attraction of a mate.

Not that he remains as the pre-eminent authority on evolution, but Darwin had some insightful things to say about human societies - not all I would consider correct but he never subscribed to the view that human evolution was driven by individual fitness alone. Somewhat ironic with the rise of Christo-Fascists that detest 'Darwinism' in the US (and to a lesser extent here in Australia) that he considered Euro-Christian societies the superior form.

My own view is that we are getting more variation within the population due to our nurturing of the 'weak' but that should circumstances change and our technology dependency break down we will see a lot more natural selection. Yet I think it will be the survival and adaptations of societies that largely determine who does best and which physical traits are lost and which persist and become more common within subsequent populations.

14 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

One further thought to leave you with.

Comparing wild animals and humans can be done in many ways. Some favourable to your thesis, some not so much. And some offering a bit of insight.

So compare deer and humans.

A fawn can stand immediately on birth and walk soon afterwards, feed itself soon after that.

A baby human can....... stand after a year, walk another six months, and feed itself several years later.

How do these characteristics play out in the self survival stakes you are promoting ?

Can this difference be the reason Humans are more nurturing animals ?

It is of course important between survival of the individual and survival of the species.

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

Comparing wild animals and humans can be done in many ways. Some favourable to your thesis, some not so much. And some offering a bit of insight.

So compare deer and humans.

A fawn can stand immediately on birth and walk soon afterwards, feed itself soon after that.

A baby human can....... stand after a year, walk another six months, and feed itself several years later.

How do these characteristics play out in the self survival stakes you are promoting ?

Can this difference be the reason Humans are more nurturing animals ?

It is of course important between survival of the individual and survival of the species.

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.

52 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

If spiders exist longer than humans, which will be the most advanced?

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If spiders exist longer than humans, which will be the most advanced?

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

Have you considered that there are different kinds of 'evolution' ?
Primates for example have a different evolutionary pathway than ants, or bees, for example,
For these types, single members don't take on differing characteristics, rather groups evolve differently to undertake different tasks, and the 'organism' is the collective.

Maybe that is how humans are now evolving.
We are becoming more social, and take care of each other to enable more of us to reach reproductive age.
Isn't that the job of evolution; enable reproduction and passing on of genetic material ?
Does that

Edited Sunday at 01:19 AM3 days by MigL

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Have you considered that there are different kinds of 'evolution' ?
Primates for example have a different evolutionary pathway than ants, or bees, for example,
For these types, single members don't take on differing characteristics, rather groups evolve differently to undertake different tasks, and the 'organism' is the collective.

Maybe that is how humans are now evolving.
We are becoming more social, and take care of each other to enable more of us to reach reproductive age.
Isn't that the job of evolution; enable reproduction and passing on of genetic material ?
Does that

There are creatures that have the sort of life cycle following this.

Some only live for one day, they hatch, grow up mate (if that is the right word) and pass on the genetic material and then die.

Are we promoting this model for humans ?

After all humans suffer greatly from the ageing process which our collective caring offsets.

@BusaDave9

Have you considered this implication of human maturity since most make it past 'maturity' these days (in richer countries at least).

Edited Sunday at 08:36 AM3 days by studiot

15 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

Ok, we have a survival advantage. So what’s the point you’re trying to make? Lots of species have a survival advantage for the world as it has recently been.

15 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

You also said “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.”

You agree that our traits give us a survival advantage but you made a distinction between our advantage and “wild animals” but now that doesn’t matter? You seem to be treating human evolution as being different because we’re leveraging our intelligence and opposable thumbs, but you haven’t made a case for why that should be.

22 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

Why are you comparing blind humans with falcons that need to have excellent eyesight rather than with animals living in complete darkness that are totally blind and don't need sight?

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Ok, we have a survival advantage. So what’s the point you’re trying to make?

My thoughts exactly. The OP appears determined that this is problematic, yet seems incapable of stating exactly what those problems may be.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Ok, we have a survival advantage. So what’s the point you’re trying to make? Lots of species have a survival advantage for the world as it has recently been.

You also said “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.”

You agree that our traits give us a survival advantage but you made a distinction between our advantage and “wild animals” but now that doesn’t matter? You seem to be treating human evolution as being different because we’re leveraging our intelligence and opposable thumbs, but you haven’t made a case for why that should be.

@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.

Edited Monday at 12:04 AM2 days by BusaDave9

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.

Edited Monday at 01:47 AM2 days by BusaDave9

1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:

@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.

Repeating yourself is not an answer to my question

1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:

As I said before, It's no longer survival of the fittest for humans. It's survival of everyone.

Which is: so what? Is your point that you need to explain the obvious?

I’ve already said that we reduce selection pressure, though I wouldn’t say it’s reduced to zero.

1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:

My point is we humans have a tremendous advantage in modern times.

Yes. So what? It seems there’s no point to be made past this preamble of stating the obvious, to wit, that human intelligence (enabled by other evolutionary changes) has been a great advantage. I’ve been waiting for the second act, and it seems you’re reaffirming that there is none.

1 hour ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

Opposable thumbs are arguably necessary for our technology, which you have mentioned.

21 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

I'll go so far as to say survival of the fittest affects us less that any other animal. I know I'll have a lot of people vehemently disagree.

Everyone is expected to survive today. It's a far different situation for wild animals.

I think the disagreement you’ve seen is from your gaps/deficiencies in understanding evolution, not in the general observation.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Opposable thumbs are arguably necessary for our technology, which you have mentioned.

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)

44 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

Opposable thumbs (which evolved millions of years ago) are arguably necessary for our technology (of today)

of course.
They are, arguably, just as needed for grasping stone, and bone, tools/weapons, as they are for texting on your phone.

Quite a while ago, I suggested to a colleague that dolphins can't be as intelligent as humans because they don't have hands. My point was that dolphins are physically incapable of developing technology regardless of how intellectually capable their brains are. And because their intellectual capability would be naturally limited by their physical capability, their intellectual capability would necessarily be less than ours (though I do acknowledge that dolphins do possess physical capabilities that humans don't possess without technology, and therefore it's not as straightforward as simple ordering of intellectual capability).

4 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

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.

Yes we all agree it is different for humans. One point I have not seen made yet is that we even consciously control whether or not we reproduce. The birth rate drops in human populations as women’s opportunities for work improve and contraception becomes available to them. Since the engine of evolution is reproductive “success”, once reproduction is no longer necessarily seen as a “success” and you can decide not to, that can be expected to have an impact on the direction evolution takes. I’ve seen it suggested that brighter women have fewer children, which may make the human race more stupid over time. 😄

8 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

Comments like this make me realize you are not even paying attention to what I am saying.

I thought it was clear that I can’t decipher what you’re saying, unless this whole thread is about stating an obvious, uncontested fact with no further point.

Yes, we have reduced selection pressure in many ways owing to having intelligence. Individuals survive that likely would not have without our technology. What are you wishing to discuss?

6 hours ago, exchemist said:

Yes we all agree it is different for humans. One point I have not seen made yet is that we even consciously control whether or not we reproduce. The birth rate drops in human populations as women’s opportunities for work improve and contraception becomes available to them. Since the engine of evolution is reproductive “success”, once reproduction is no longer necessarily seen as a “success” and you can decide not to, that can be expected to have an impact on the direction evolution takes. I’ve seen it suggested that brighter women have fewer children, which may make the human race more stupid over time. 😄

Thank you. You are the first person to admit evolution is much different for humans than wild animals.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I thought it was clear that I can’t decipher what you’re saying, unless this whole thread is about stating an obvious, uncontested fact with no further point.

Yes, we have reduced selection pressure in many ways owing to having intelligence. Individuals survive that likely would not have without our technology. What are you wishing to discuss?

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?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I thought it was clear that I can’t decipher what you’re saying,

Read my very first post and tell me what wasn't clear.