0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
quote:Originally posted by ikoDo you know the "story" of thalassemia and malaria? It is quite a good example of a defect that had been preserved instead of being eliminated through generations of people.
quote:Originally posted by iko25% will be perfectly normal (both chromosomes with ok genes), 50% healthy "carriers" like their parents, 25% sick children, unable to survive more than few years (now they are treated with transfusions and bone marrow transplantation in some).iko
quote:but if we are using medicine to secure that even the people that in normal circumstances would die, are we not in fact tampering with evolution??....why is the basis of science contradiction?weed4me
quote:Haemophilia would fit much better as an example of genetic disease (heavy on the males affected by the severe type) that requires expensive treatment an can be transmitted to the next generation.As many other defects, it's rare enough and not a major problem for developed countries.Speaking of the "global society" and economy: just approx.20% of haemophiliacs are treated in this world, the other 80% survive and become crippled over the years (because of repeated and untreated bleedings in their joints).iko
quote:All of them (100%) even the untreated and crippled ones preserve and transfer their defective genes.
quote: i always thought evolution was natural and was for the benefit of humankind on the whole
quote:Originally posted by rosyWell, evolution's certainly natural, but it's no more "for the benefit of humankind" than gravity is.
quote:Originally posted by realmswalkerHowever now adays, those same mutations no longer result in death (because of medicine, science, etc) and the people with them can produce offspring before they die.So this gives those mutations a chance to produce benefits, when they survive, and possibly exist with other mutations whose combinations wouldnt have occured in the past
quote:With the advent of sign language, not only are deaf people finding it easier to develop relationships, and ultimately to marry; but they are finding it relatively easier to communicate, and so develop relationships, with other deaf people (who also know sign language) that with hearing partners (who, more often than not, are not conversant in sign language).someother_anyone
quote:So this gives those mutations a chance to produce benefits, when they survive, and possibly exist with other mutations whose combinations wouldnt have occured in the pastrealmswalker
quote:Originally posted by Soul SurferWhat then are the true evolutionary pressures in human society?What are the likely results?andShould we take notice of them and try to adjust our attitudes or behaviour?
quote:Originally posted by ikoHuman society is probably the centre, 'core' of human evolution.A superior level of organization: cells, tissues, organs, body + brain and...society.This is conditioning our future, where genetic characters may play a minor role.Is it too corny?iko
quote:Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to explain behaviour in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages of social behaviours. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, and it also draws from ethology, evolution, zoology, archeology, population genetics, and other disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.Sociobiology has become one of the greatest scientific controversies of the late 20th century. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centers on sociobiology's contention that genes play a decisive role in human behavior, suggesting there are limitations to reducing traits such as aggressiveness. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist form with less controversial focusesDefinitionSociobiology is the biological basis for animal social behavior. It is based on the idea that animals will act in ways to improve their own inclusive fitness (Kin Selection). It is a selfish genes hypothesis that states the individual is not as important to the population as its genes.Therefore, animal behavior can be explained by how they act to preserve their genes in the population. It can be used to explain why a lioness will nurse not only her own young, but the young of her close genetic relatives in the pride (nephews and nieces). It can also be used to explain why a new dominant male lion will kill cubs in the pride that do not belong to him. Killing the cubs causes the nursing females to come into heat faster, thereby giving the male lion an opportunity to get his genes into the population much faster......From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
quote:Originally posted by nannhamApparently with the advent of human civilization, our biological evolution slowed down because there was no longer a need to compete in the wild with other animals for food or territory. Now human evolution had included another factor, a new equation so to speak, as Iko says above ... society ... no Iko, not too corny ... And as you say, Sona, now not so much survival of the fittest but the smartest ... it makes perfect sense.
quote:One thing I would state categorically is that social advantage is not determined by such one dimensional concepts as who is the 'smartest'.another_someone
quote:Originally posted by another_someoneThat many of the forces that favour one population over another are social in nature is without question, but the consequences are visible changes in population. How much the social changes are themselves biological in origin is itself open to debate (i.e. to what extent are social values genetically determined?).One thing I would state categorically is that social advantage is not determined by such one dimensional concepts as who is the 'smartest'.George
quote:Originally posted by ikoDon't worry, I don't think anybody here is talking of the deformed humanoids of the future with enormous skulls and atrophic bodies that we saw in some old movies!We probably have to define better who is the 'smartest'...It could mean not the brightest, the most clever, the successful person, but the tolerant, adaptable and capable of facing new realities and change (who cannot change...won't survive)I have a vague memory (Dr. Alzy is making my brain fall into pieces...) of a psycological study comparing IIWorldWar survivors (USA parachuters I recall) to normal people: they were found to have a particular attitude and positive reactions in facing difficult and stressful situations...plus other interesting findings I can't remember.Smart could mean too many different things!LOL (lots of lies)iko
I think i have a grasp on the basics of evolution, so i have a question.when a species allows for the survival of everyone, regardless of their genes (like ours), shouldnt it provide for the development of quick advances and changes in genes?
Normally, for new traits to appear, it has to be beneficial to reproduction, or neutral to it. Then later a bunch of neutral traits can combine to form a positive trait.However in a society that allows for just about all traits to remain, then it opens up the possiblities, as potential negitives to reproduction (like ADD, for example) remain in the gene pool, instead of dying out. And later, a bunch of these can combine to make a sudden change...potentially...Idk its late...and im just thinking, not very coherently, but when am i ever really coherent...?