Evolution and Medicine

[Callipygous]

According to evolutionary theory, individuals in a society are weeded out if they possess an atribute that makes them less likely to survive and reproduce. When we (humans) use medicine, I believe we are weakening the human race by stopping evolution from taking place. If we didnt use medicine then people with inhibiting conditions would gradually die out. if we didnt make glasses then we wouldnt have very many people with really bad eyes because if you cant see you cant get by in our daily world. is the human race permenantly halting its own progress? are we forcing ourselves to remain imperfect forever? will other races eventually overcome us since we are the only ones who use medicine?

 

any thoughts/opinions/insights welcome.

[daisy]

Are you totally sure we are the only ones to use medicine....what about the great apes?.......I'm guessing you have knowledge that I don't.....i.e. that they don't self-medicate? Anyway, if we as humans can circumvent evolution by developing medicines, is that not evolution in action? We have evolved the brain type that can work out solutions, therefore we have the edge surely? And don't sweat it...if we have gone too far, we will be wiped out when we can't successfully reproduce without major intervention. And anyway...your first sentence ...is that true....surely it must be turned on it's head....if the individual in a society has an advantage it is more likely to survive and reproduce???

[Callipygous]

Are you totally sure we are the only ones to use medicine....what about the great apes?.......I'm guessing you have knowledge that I don't.....i.e. that they don't self-medicate? Anyway, if we as humans can circumvent evolution by developing medicines, is that not evolution in action? We have evolved the brain type that can work out solutions, therefore we have the edge surely? And don't sweat it...if we have gone too far, we will be wiped out when we can't successfully reproduce without major intervention. And anyway...your first sentence ...is that true....surely it must be turned on it's head....if the individual in a society has an advantage it is more likely to survive and reproduce???

 

i said they are "WEEDED OUT if they possess an attribute that makes them LESS likely to survive and reproduce". as in they die off if they have a disadvantage. and im not worried about humans dieing off, i just think that we are stopping ourselves from progressing beyond our current state. evolution in action... yes, we evolved with better brains, but if we use that brain to keep the weaker members of our society alive then we force those weaknesses to remain in our genepool.

[Sayonara]

Individuals are not "weeded out".

[Callipygous]

Individuals are not "weeded out".

 

im sorry, did you want to explain that? instead of just a blanket statement how about you explain what part of that statement makes it wrong? is it because when you hear "weeded out" you think of something intentionally removing them? is it because you dont believe in evolution? or do you think my watered down version of evolution is incorrect?

[Sayonara]

What makes me say it is that individuals are not "weeded out" in evolutionary theory.

 

You need to be thinking about unfit genotypes, not unfit people. Oh, and watch out for Lamarckism - this is the kind of thread it sneaks into.

[SubJunk]

it's very brave of you to bring this up

It's a huge topic of conversation that can never be proven or disproven, but still very fun, even if at times it makes you want to pull your hair out.

Firstly, the definition of evolution is:

A gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations.

I'll join in the debate after more people have cause my brain just overloaded with thoughts on it and I must lie down now...

[Callipygous]

What makes me say it is that individuals are not "weeded out" in evolutionary theory.

 

You need to be thinking about unfit genotypes' date=' not unfit people. Oh, and watch out for Lamarckism - this is the kind of thread it sneaks into.[/quote']

 

individuals with unfit genotypes are generally more likely to die before they reproduce, the individuals die so the genotype doesnt get passed on. i guess i worded that a little wierd in the original post, but thats the idea.

[Sayonara]

individuals with unfit genotypes are generally more likely to die before they reproduce, the individuals die so the genotype doesnt get passed on. i guess i worded that a little wierd in the original post, but thats the idea.

Not necessarily so. There are about as many genetic conditions causing sterility or reduced chances of mating without increased risk of mortality as there are fatal conditions that don't cause sterility or reduce fecundity.

 

I know what you mean to say, it's just not that important to the question you're asking unless you're using the assumption that people with evolutionarily fit genotypes don't benefit from medical intervention.

[Callipygous]

Not necessarily so. There are about as many genetic conditions causing sterility or reduced chances of mating without increased risk of mortality as there are fatal conditions that don't cause sterility or reduce fecundity.

 

i did say it was watered down. thank you for explaining.

[rakuenso]

If you think about it, our gene pool is slowly being filled with more and more "bad" genes. Eye sight is one example, normally in a natural environment, hunters with bad eyesight who cannot see their prey tend to die off before they can reproduce. Humans on the other hand, who have the genes for bad eyesight, simply get glasses and pass this bad gene down to their children. I also have a friend who has 4 toes and a missing bone, normally in natural selection and evolution, he would be at a major disadvantage, but in the human case, it doesn't really matter. His chance of mating are almost identical to others as along as he has good looks. (Thanks MTV for destroying nature's natural process of selection,) By this I mean that we are no longer mating for the best genes, but rather for the best looks. A slim female for one, is no where near genetically viable as a plumper female, but pop culture has completely destroyed that trend and we mate for asthetic rather than practical reasons.

 

In turn, this slow accumulation of crappy genes will take us to a critical point where medicine will be unable to fix these things. (Again, unless there is a dramatic progress towards gene therapy, which literally IMO is our only hope.)

[swansont]

By this I mean that we are no longer mating for the best genes' date=' but rather for the best looks. A slim female for one, is no where near genetically viable as a plumper female, but pop culture has completely destroyed that trend and we mate for asthetic rather than practical reasons.

[/quote']

 

Read up on sexual selection. Mating for "best looks" happens all the time in other species.

[rakuenso]

That is because the best looks in humans are usually linked with the genes for best characteristics. It doesn't apply to humans.

[Aardvark]

That is because the best looks in humans are usually linked with the genes for best characteristics. It doesn't apply to humans.

 

It does.

 

Unblemished skin, long glossy hair, clear eyes, all attractive in a partner, and all indicators of good health.

 

What we find attractive is very largely based on our DNA, the vagarities of culture only influence our choices marginaly.

[Hellbender]

Eye sight is one example, normally in a natural environment, hunters with bad eyesight who cannot see their prey tend to die off before they can reproduce. Humans on the other hand, who have the genes for bad eyesight, simply get glasses and pass this bad gene down to their children.

 

remember that poor eyesight can be acquired as well.

[coquina]

You aren't the first person to have such ideas. Check out Hitler and Aryan Supremacy.

[Sayonara]

Hitler was trying to advance 'a' race, rather than 'the' race, if that makes any difference. And he had a more active and 'hands-on' approach, whereas Callipygous is proposing a passive (you might even say naturalistic) movement.

[coquina]

Point taken.

[Sayonara]

It does raise the interesting question of whether or not the mere existence of medical technologies (for example) creates a moral obligation for us to use them.

[Coral Rhedd]

Just curious here. If people (with certain genetics) are surviving doesn't that mean that they have adapted to recent past and present circumstances. I am trying to think how serious poor eyesight is today. I wonder how many other nearsighted people think the greatest handicap to nearsightedness is problems actually finding their glasses when they take them off. For most people this is not likely to affect their survival as long as glasses, contacts, or vision correcting eyesurgery is available.

 

Of course there can be some near misses: Suppose I have a crucial job interview for Thursday. On Wednesday night, I take off my glasses and put them down in the wrong place so that on Thursday morning I cannot find them. Therefore, I cannot drive. Therefore, I must call a taxi. Naturally the taxi will arrive late. Therefore, I arrive at the job interview late and make a bad impression and don't get the job and my income is substantially affected and I can't make the mortgage payment and I end up on welfare and find it is inadequate to live on and become homeless and find the shelter will not allow me an extended stay and end up on the street where I cannot sell my body because I am too old and I eventually freeze or starve to death. Therefore taking me out of the gene pool. My god, this is horrible! I am getting sick just thinking about it.

 

Is that the sort of thing you were referring to or am I completely misunderstanding your POV?

[Kleptin]

I'm confused. I'll bring us back to the main point that everyone is trying to make. Technology inhibits the main operating standards of "survival of the fittest" Go on.

[Sayonara]

Or does it?

 

One might well consider that a population with the ability to produce and distribute antibiotics is more evolutionarily fit than an equivalent population without that ability. They are, after all, more likely to survive to a reproductive age on average.

[Dak]

in a society with contact lenses, can a gene which causes shortsightedness actually be said to be bad? i mean, im incredably shortsighted, but it only ever has any bearing on my life once every month, when i have to change my contacts.

 

so, rather than saying 'modern medicine allows weak genes to survive' would it not be more accurate to say that 'modern medicine removes evolutionary pressure from a gene'?

 

with no bad effects of posessing wonkey eye genes (because of contact lenses) eye-genes are free to mutate, and so possibly evolve -- gene duplication has a similar effect, if a gene is duplilcated then one of the copies, having the evolutionary pressure to stay the same removed, can go off and evolve into something else.

 

so maybe, by removing the evolutionary pressure on our genes, well actually be allowing them to evolve into something better.

 

of course, they could just crap out, and then the entire human race would have to wear contacts; but if the entire human race has decent eyesight then the entire human race has decent eyesight -- wether naturally or due to contact lenses.

[Kleptin]

That is true...But the antibiotics are being made by relatively few people and the ones who don't know to make antibiotics will still be benefitting.

[logicBomb]

medicine is culture, which is a part of the extended phenotype of our species -- much as a dam is part of the extended phenotype of a beaver.

 

genes & culture coadapt in the context of their interaction in the environment. a modern human is fit in the context of medicine in the same way a beaver is fit in the context of a dam.