michel123456 Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Of course my idea depends on two people who are very intelligent (1) because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be more intelligent than the average. It also depends on two people who are less intelligent (2) because of genetic traits producing children who tend to be less intelligent than the average. It is only an idea and I have no evidence that this is so - I would be interested to know of any evidence for or against the idea. (emphasis & bold numbers mine) (1)Aryan (2)untermensch Bad memories. Edited February 20, 2011 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 Michel, I wrote the post from general knowledge probably acquired from reading Science News for 40 years. The human bottleneck idea has been invoked often to explain rapid changes in humans evolution. Here is an older full text article on this topic-- http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/2.full . It actually does not support a bottle neck in recent human evolution because the authors claim that the evidence isn't adequate. More important, it has extensive cited references, and you can always go to Google Scholar to search for more recent publications that cite this article to follow up if you have access to a university library (I really miss this). I suspect that this might be a minor controversy in the area of human evolution. I would appreciate any further information you find. Tony, I am also not an expert, but I did have an anthropology minor in undergrad, took a Ph.D. level behavioral genetics course (in 1976), and did some evolutionary research on a cave animal as a part of a nervous system development project. I think my information is correct, but as I said, see what you can find on the Genetics section of this forum. On your own I suggest "regression to the mean" as a starting search term. As a general recommendation I would like to encourage the idea of helping insure that all women have reproductive and other rights, families can depend on security from violence, and there is adequate employment to support families. This and a little education is what reliably brings reproductive rates down to sustainable levels. If this doesn't happen I think that the billions of new people that resulted from the green revolution are going to die horribly and create a bottle neck in human evolution. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyMcC Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) (emphasis & bold numbers mine) (1)Aryan (2)untermensch Bad memories. Your two links seem to be about the ideas (which I find horrific) that whole classes of people can be considered to be either superior and encouraged to breed or inferior and prevented from breeding. I was wondering about evolutionary trends which may already have started taking place within a society. Trends that people are influencing by their own volition. I think that the examples you give were more to do with ideology and state control rather than based on science. Edited February 20, 2011 by TonyMcC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Zeta Posted February 21, 2011 Author Share Posted February 21, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker_jeff Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) You think with all the problems in the world caused by humans that the human race doesn't need to change that much? This seems an ethical question instead of a scientific question to me. If you do ask a question scientificlly, please make more clear on your point. Edited February 21, 2011 by thinker_jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 (edited) This seems an ethical question instead of a scientific question to me. If you do ask a question scientificlly, please make more clear on your point. THe human race is not naturally operating on the most efficient scale to have the best chances of survival. Edited February 21, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker_jeff Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 THe human race is not naturally operating on the most efficient scale to have the best chances of survival. If you want to say that human race should be evolved to be much better form than today's form, I would agree with you. Over here, my point is that in the current human society, Evolution process depended on generic mutation and natural selection has been stopped, regardless of imperfection of human beings. Again, natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers (quote from Wikipedia). In our modern society the marriage system almost give every human being the chance to breed the next generation, and the population in next generation almost same as in current generation. The fact is that they are almost all alive by help of medical system. Therefore, the process of natural selection has been ending, only the process of generic mutation still exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Mrs Zeta. A significant change that is affecting evolution in current developed nations is the reduction in selection pressure by diseases that kill prior to breeding and child rearing age. This is, of course, due to increased health care and sanitary conditions worldwide. This is not a cessation of evolutionary change. The Neutral Mutation Theory, originated by Kimura, has been fleshed out and added to the evolutionary theory synthesis. Apparently most of the point mutations that occur in DNA have no effect whatsoever. For example, there are quite a few single amino acids and whole regions of large proteins that can be altered without affecting the functioning of the protein at all. These changes accumulate slowly and can be compared between two species to get estimates of evolutionary distance and time. In addition to this process, changes in genes from which selection pressure has been released are retained, rather than being selected out, and they accumulate because they are now neutral. Overall this process is often called random genetic drift and these silent changes can suddenly become important when the protein product changes enough to be important for survival again. Also, in instances in which the original selection pressure returns from, for example, the return of a previously banished disease, the silently changed gene may now be ineffective. Evolutionary change operates on very long time scales relative to human society. For example, cave animals loose vision when the development of their eye is disabled by random changes of 10 or 12 genes. This often results in a degenerative vestigial cyst below the skin that only contains some random eye elements. Such a change probably takes somewhere between 10K and 100K years. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) If you want to say that human race should be evolved to be much better form than today's form, I would agree with you. Over here, my point is that in the current human society, Evolution process depended on generic mutation and natural selection has been stopped, regardless of imperfection of human beings. Again, natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers (quote from Wikipedia). In our modern society the marriage system almost give every human being the chance to breed the next generation, and the population in next generation almost same as in current generation. The fact is that they are almost all alive by help of medical system. Therefore, the process of natural selection has been ending, only the process of generic mutation still exists. Parts of human society through natural selection can still develop immunities to different diseases, or better physical abilities, or better mental abilities, or develop more adaptive health capacities, etc. Don't say this is racist, because its not: Shortly before the Renaissance, Europeans who survived things such as the bubonic plague or black plague developed immunities to them. African people in the past had developed a greater muscle density while the groups of humans who split off to form all the other groups all over the world develop such as tribes in Mexico developed a greater capacity to run, such as for over 100 miles in a race, and they still exist today (the race is called a "century", and there are tribes in Mexico that still do it today), while late Europeans developed better swimming abilities. The Indians living in the Northern parts of Canada have developed a better way to survive in the cold, and some tribes there are even capable of eating raw meat with any damaging infections. I don't see how you can say evolution is coming to an end when there's so many things that could change and so many different environments and lifestyles on the Earth. Edited February 22, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarborist Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The distinction between what is the 'natural' and the 'unnatural' world is artificial....as is the distinction between life and non-life, etc. Matter and energy are subject to the same principles of the universe regardless of whatever labels we impose upon them. Humans splicing genes...altering mitochondria, etc. is just chemistry subject to the same physical properties as any other genetic evolution. We are products of evolution and not outside of the process. Anything we do to impact evolution is as much a part of the 'natural' process as any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Steevey, there are some differences between groups of humans for which genetic differences have been linked to the evolutionary process. I don't know where you got your list of group differences, but did they provide any scientific evidence for these claims? SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) Steevey, there are some differences between groups of humans for which genetic differences have been linked to the evolutionary process. I don't know where you got your list of group differences, but did they provide any scientific evidence for these claims? SM Everything I've listed is proven, but the only way those specific adaptions could occur with such a large scale of people is by the process of natural selection, unless aliens have been secretly tampering with people's DNA throughout history. The people who survived the Black Plague had a natural immunity to it, so they went on to raise future generations, while the people without the immunity in that region died. Edited February 22, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) OK Steevey, please provide the references that show that what you say has been proven. Science only please, no speculation by non experts. SM Edited February 22, 2011 by SMF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) OK Steevey, please provide the references that show that what you say has been proven. Science only please, no speculation by non experts. SM If you were in high school or probably even middle school, you should have learned about the Black Death, so you'll have to go back and ask some teachers Otherwise, wikipedia mentions that Inuits have raw meat in their diet http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Inuit_diet which could only happen as an entire people if they gene generationally developed an immunity to the germs in raw meat. Although I wasn't able to find a clear source on the internet since I'm mostly running into things like this http://www.elitefitn...kly-220438.html which still support my claim but only adequately, but otherwise I can safely say a doctor specializing in health told me herself that African people have a greater muscle advantage/density. Here's the tribe in mexico that runs a lot http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Tarahumara OK Steevey, please provide the references that show that what you say has been proven. Science only please, no speculation by non experts. SM I don't know how you can peruse me on it this much, because even without me mentioning any of this, it should be quite clear that there are many different circumstances for the human race to adapt to and improve upon. I think it would be pretty nifty if people could work out a lot, then after not working for a month, have the same muscle capacity if they wanted without working out, but that's not the case, since your muscle's gradually degrade the less you use them, which is probably due to the fact that if your sitting in a chair most of your life, it would be inefficient to use up metabolism for strength you don't need, but I can still think of instances where this would be useful if there was some way you could control it. Edited February 22, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker_jeff Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Parts of human society through natural selection can still develop immunities to different diseases, or better physical abilities, or better mental abilities, or develop more adaptive health capacities, etc. Don't say this is racist, because its not: Shortly before the Renaissance, Europeans who survived things such as the bubonic plague or black plague developed immunities to them. African people in the past had developed a greater muscle density while the groups of humans who split off to form all the other groups all over the world develop such as tribes in Mexico developed a greater capacity to run, such as for over 100 miles in a race, and they still exist today (the race is called a "century", and there are tribes in Mexico that still do it today), while late Europeans developed better swimming abilities. The Indians living in the Northern parts of Canada have developed a better way to survive in the cold, and some tribes there are even capable of eating raw meat with any damaging infections. I don't see how you can say evolution is coming to an end when there's so many things that could change and so many different environments and lifestyles on the Earth. You have changed the concept from the modern human society to human society. In modern human society there is no health disaster such as Black Death. In fact every body has been provided immune defense by public health care. Everyone knows there are many undeveloped countries in the world in which some health disasters may still happen. However, if you read all of my posts in this topic, you should understand why my concept is different from yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Steevey: You have not provided any scientific evidence of evolutionary change. This would require some published science that involved genetic analysis and an attempt to attribute this to evolutionary processes. You have provided some evidence for the remarkable abilities of humans to adapt and persevere in some activities. A Belgian recently completed running 365 marathons in one year. Do you now think that Europeans evolved to become excellent runners? http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SPORT/02/05/marathon.record.engels.365/index.html I don’t know what surviving the plagues or Inuit dietary practices have to do with anything. I think you should get a beginning evolutionary textbook or take a class. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Steevey: You have not provided any scientific evidence of evolutionary change. This would require some published science that involved genetic analysis and an attempt to attribute this to evolutionary processes. You have provided some evidence for the remarkable abilities of humans to adapt and persevere in some activities. A Belgian recently completed running 365 marathons in one year. Do you now think that Europeans evolved to become excellent runners? http://edition.cnn.c....365/index.html I don't know what surviving the plagues or Inuit dietary practices have to do with anything. I think you should get a beginning evolutionary textbook or take a class. SM The evidence is what has already been uncovered in history and biology which is that populations develop immunities over time through evolution. I honestly don't know how you couldn't possibly know that unless you never paid attention in high school or wherever you took a biology class. Eating meat also isn't something you can just go about doing. Some populations over time developed immunities to germs like salmonella which allows them to eat raw meat. I've gotten food poisoning from raw chicken about three times and each time after the first time, I haven't fought the symptoms any better. Some people just have a better immune response which allows them to eat raw meat, over time, they can bring that to a population. A Belgian recently completed running 365 marathons in one year. Do you now think that Europeans evolved to become excellent runners? http://edition.cnn.c....365/index.html I don't know what surviving the plagues or Inuit dietary practices have to do with anything. I think you should get a beginning evolutionary textbook or take a class. Some people can train to become a good runner, but others are quite capable of it naturally or naturally have a greater lung capacity. And why do you suppose that is? It's not cause of magic, its cause of genes. The reason that I only need the fact that adaptation has been proven and that evolution has insurmountable evidence is because all of the things I mentioned could only happen because of evolution. I don't see why you are so against evolution effecting populations when the evidence for it is insurmountable. If you want to go ask some experts in real life if I'm right, be my guest, because thats how I found out about those things. Even skin color is a basic adaption you should have learned about early on. Darker skin is better for resisting sun burns, however people migrating to Europe didn't need darker skin since there was annually less sunlight, so eventually European populations which then spread through the world develop lighter skin. If you still somehow think I'm completely bs, here's this http://www.wired.com...umans-evolving/ and this http://www.time.com/...1931757,00.html which also contradicts the title of this topic. Something that's evolved also doesn't necessarily have to be something superior than to something before, just different. Edited February 23, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Steevey, you still haven't presented any evidence. Evidence is not some columnist or blog site or news item. I am quite aware of some of the studies that show small differences between human groups, but you haven't presented anything but your own opinion. Greater lung capacity can be a developmental or a conditioning phenomenon and to claim that it is due to a genetic change requires evidence of genetic change, not your opinion. If what you are saying is true, then there should be scientific support. Why don't you find some good published scientific journal articles, it would be a good exercise. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Steevey, you still haven't presented any evidence. Evidence is not some columnist or blog site or news item. I am quite aware of some of the studies that show small differences between human groups, but you haven't presented anything but your own opinion. Greater lung capacity can be a developmental or a conditioning phenomenon and to claim that it is due to a genetic change requires evidence of genetic change, not your opinion. If what you are saying is true, then there should be scientific support. Why don't you find some good published scientific journal articles, it would be a good exercise. SM How do I know that website about the Belgian man is accurate? I guess it's just your opinion since its a website, according to your views. If you actually looked at my most recent links, they aren't blog posts, they are backed up by scientists who have been asked for data. According to you, any link on the website someone uses isn't evidence if my links that I posted aren't actual evidence for anything. I'll try one more time, and if you fail to see any evidence, then I give up with you http://www.nytimes.c...ce/26human.html Look at the 4th paragraph, providing evidence that diets can change by the process of evolution. I'm pretty 100% sure writers for news papers don't make up with the scientific information themselves, especially when there's quotes from scientists who exist. You might also want to read some of this http://www.bmedrepor.../archives/17554 and this http://www.wwnorton....5/welcome.shtml If you took a proper biology class, you should at least know that certain populations evolved immunities certain to diseases. Why do you think air-lines are so against letting any sort of contagious person into another country even if the disease isn't that big of a deal in the home country? It's because the other population of a country they are going to might not have a natural immunity since their ancestral populations might have never been exposed to the pathogen and therefore could have never evolved to be more resistant to it. Edited February 23, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker_jeff Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Why do you think air-lines are so against letting any sort of contagious person into another country even if the disease isn't that big of a deal in the home country? It's because the other population of a country they are going to might not have a natural immunity since their ancestral populations might have never been exposed to the pathogen and therefore could have never evolved to be more resistant to it. This is another example to see how the process of Natural Seletion has been stopped by public heath care in modern society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Zeta Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited February 23, 2011 by Mrs Zeta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 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. The environment has changed, as it has before and will again. The temperature changes, the rainfall changes, the species change, and now we have technology as part of the environment. The rules have not changed. The environment has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) This is another example to see how the process of Natural Seletion has been stopped by public heath care in modern society. 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. 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. Just because more negative genes are dying out doesn't mean positive or just different genes aren't appearing more. There's also still plenty of genetic diseases scientists have no cure for which arise from people marrying in the same family or pure coincidence. Edited February 24, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMF Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Steevey, I am beginning to think that you are trolling. You say say-- Just because more negative genes are dying out doesn't mean positive or just different genes aren't appearing more. There's also still plenty of genetic diseases scientists have no cure for which arise from people marrying in the same family or pure coincidence. So, prove me wrong by providing any evidence whatsoever of genes that have died out, or any new genes that have appeared. Any peer reviewed scientific evidence will do. You seem to be just making this stuff up. SM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steevey Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Steevey, I am beginning to think that you are trolling. You say say-- So, prove me wrong by providing any evidence whatsoever of genes that have died out, or any new genes that have appeared. Any peer reviewed scientific evidence will do. You seem to be just making this stuff up. SM I didn't mean it to say that the actual genes causing them are disappearing, but rather that the amount of extreme genetic diseases has gone down, especially since nations starting restricting people from marrying members of their own families. There are definitely still many people all over the world with different genetic diseases, but with all the research being done, people can even see which genetic diseases they are carriers for. And by the context, it's important to note that "appeared" doesn't mean "suddenly created", it also means "noticed" or "becoming more prevalent", which I've already provided evidence for with populations becoming immune to diseases or germs and groups of populations developing different diets such as being able to digest lactose or raw meat without negative effects. Edited February 24, 2011 by steevey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now