[Simmer]

quote:Originally posted by rosy
Well, evolution's certainly natural, but it's no more "for the benefit of humankind" than gravity is.

Exactly! Evolution's so last millenium - in a few years we'll be able to make changes in one generation that would take evolution a thousand.  

Sea level rising? Gills please, with a side order of webbed feet. Oh and hold the haemophilia! []

[another_someone]

I think the point people are missing here is that evolution is not the process by which things are changed, but the consequence of change and selection – the actual processes by which change and selection happen do not alter the reality of evolution, only its outcome.

Nor is evolution a particularly biological process – evolution applies as much to commerce (where some corporate entities dominate and others die off), and to political entities, and even to technology itself.

George

[realmswalker (OP)]

and i think no one got my original statement

some genetic mutations, were this 10,000 years ago, or even 2000 would result in death, and a lack of offspring, therefore they would have died out.
However 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

[rosy]

quote:All of them (100%) even the untreated and crippled ones preserve and transfer their defective genes.

Not true, surely... I think quite a lot of untreated haemophiliacs die in childhood of otherwise minor injuries? Some make it to parenthood, but many don't... I'm sure the proportion of reproductively successful haemophiliacs is higher in the developed countries!

Surely the point is that at present we can (afford to) make it possible for more people with genetic conditions such as haemophilia and indeed many others to have children, so the genes which cause those conditions are more common amongst the next generation, and the next, and so on, than they would be if some or all of those affected by the condition died of it. So yeah, we're altering the path of evolution. Is that a bad thing? Well, we're certainly going to wind up increasing the dependence of society as a whole on "modern medecine"... which is fine if we assume that our current technologies ain't going to come crashing down round our ears (I've got an open mind on that one), but a bit tough on generations to come if at some point a wheel drops off and suddenly we can't afford the resources to keep all these people ticking over who will at best suffer very unpleasantly if those resources are withdrawn..

Equally, having converted some formerly strongly negative genetic traits into relatively minor inconveniences* we may find that at some point in the future the same trait that caused such a problem previously is exactly the get-out-of-jail-free card that the species needs to overcome some catastrophic change in conditions, allowing affected individuals to survive when the rest die out (personally I doubt that one'll be haemophilia but who knows..)

*I know, to some extent, whereof I speak... I was born with a cleft palate (probably not genetic, actually, but it can be genetically linked). I owe my continued existence to the cunning modern science of reconstructive plastic surgery or I'd have starved to death as a result of being unable to eat. Just an example of a potential catastrophe relegated to a minor inconvenience.

[weed4me]

i always thought evolution was natural and was for the benefit of humankind on the whole, surely changing gentetics is not helping us evolve, but merely doing what humankind has been doing for so long...striving for perfection and immortality. yes i know, we wont acieve immortality through changing a few genes but still,  by using medicical science to 'evolve' its more adaptation to achieve perfection rather than evolution no?

"You have to stay in shape. My grandmother, she started walking five miles a day when she was 60. She's 97 today and we don't know where the hell she is."

[rosy]

quote: i always thought evolution was natural and was for the benefit of humankind on the whole

Well, evolution's certainly natural, but it's no more "for the benefit of humankind" than gravity is.
Some genes confer an advantage in a certain situation so not unnaturally the individuals with those genes breed more successfully, and so their offspring will have more and better opportunities.. continue for a number of generations and if the benefit the gene gives is strong enough its carriers will outcompete the rest (or become a whole seperate species) and evolution will have happened.
Whether it benefits the species in the long term rather depends on how conditions develope... for example I read an article a bit ago that suggested that sexual selection for stupidly big antlers among some sort of Irish moose type animal resulted in the entire species dying out, the antlers having become unsustainable.

[Simmer]

quote:Originally posted by rosy
Well, evolution's certainly natural, but it's no more "for the benefit of humankind" than gravity is.

Exactly! Evolution's so last millenium - in a few years we'll be able to make changes in one generation that would take evolution a thousand.  

Sea level rising? Gills please, with a side order of webbed feet. Oh and hold the haemophilia! []

[another_someone]

I think the point people are missing here is that evolution is not the process by which things are changed, but the consequence of change and selection – the actual processes by which change and selection happen do not alter the reality of evolution, only its outcome.

Nor is evolution a particularly biological process – evolution applies as much to commerce (where some corporate entities dominate and others die off), and to political entities, and even to technology itself.

George

[realmswalker (OP)]

and i think no one got my original statement

some genetic mutations, were this 10,000 years ago, or even 2000 would result in death, and a lack of offspring, therefore they would have died out.
However 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

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by realmswalker
However 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

One of the interesting things that has occurred in modern society concerns people who are deaf due to a genetic mutation.  In the past, the difficulty these people had in communicating with hearing individuals, they tended to marry less, and have fewer offspring; and more significantly, they were as likely as not marry someone without the mutation that caused deafness.

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).  What is thus happening is that increasingly one is building an isolated (from the breeding perspective) sub-population that perpetuates these mutations for deafness.

George

[iko]

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

I'm fascinated by seeing how fast and interestingly this evolution topic is...evolving!
Yes, in the next crazy (and hopefully peaceful) brand new world we'll have many more blind musicians, deaf sculptors and crippled scientists all together.
 

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 past
realmswalker

...and this is exactly right!
Let's forget about invisible defects, genes, DNA and CSI for a while.
iko

[Soul Surfer]

I would like to add one further comment on the subject of evolution.  That of sexual selection.  the partners chosen by males and/or females can also have a big effect.  A good example in nature that has been taken to extremes is the apperance of male birds of paradise where their flamboyant plumage impedes their ability to get food but the females like their mates to be "pretty" accorfing to the current fashion!  this is also an example of fashion in nature.
It has seriously been suggested that "intelligence" is a sexually selected trait in which females included intelligence in their choice when selecting a partner or alternatively the craftiest males managed to have the most children (whether or not their chosen sexual partners knew about it!)

OK  we've now run through all the basics I think, but the root of the question is still missing an answer.

Some people suggest that in modern western society evolutionary pressures have stopped.  
This is clearly not so.

Some people fear that the ability to counter genetic defects and/or the fact that more intelligent and succesful people tend to have small families will result in a degradation of the quality of intelligence or fitness of human beings.

What then are the true evolutionary pressures in human society?
What are the likely results?
and
Should we take notice of them and try to adjust our attitudes or behaviour?

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by Soul Surfer
What then are the true evolutionary pressures in human society?
What are the likely results?
and
Should we take notice of them and try to adjust our attitudes or behaviour?

This I think highlight the major issue that has been ignored – the difference between pressures on human society and the pressures on the human individual.

The human individual has quite a wide latitude in traits if he can sustain the social structures that provide him with a defence against the outside world.  It is a little like the variations that an individual cell might be able to posses so long as it remains part of a total multicellular organism that can offer it protection from the environment (the average liver cell would not last long when exposed naked to the environment, but performs a valuable function to the human body, and will survive so long as it is offered the protection of that body).

George

[iko]

Human 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

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by iko

Human 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

Firstly, one must ask the question as to what extent human society is itself governed by genetics, insofar as human society is governed by inter-human relations, which to soem extent are guided by genetics.

Beyond that, one then can ask to what extent one should move the focus of  the study of human evolution from genetics to memetics.

George

[iko]

I think we finally ended up in sociobiology for a change:
 

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 focuses

Definition
Sociobiology 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

...and I am afraid I have to read a bit more of this stuff before going on with our discussion (and I need a massive dose of 'cod').
iko

[Sona]

No longer survival for fittest but survival of the smartest.

Seems like the only place we would evolve in would be bigger brains.

[nannham]

Apparently 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.  

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by nannham
Apparently 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.  

Evolution has never been about 'survival of the fittest', and is not 'survival of the smartest'.

I am not sure how one measures the rate of biological evolution?  If you are talking about the number of mutations in the population, there is no evidence that the number of mutations is declining, or the number of humans with DNA mutations surviving and reproducing is in any way declining.

That humans have not split into separate sub-species that cannot interbreed has not happened in the last 250,000 years, but the same could be said for many other species of animals.

We do know that typical physiology of humans has changed even over the last millennia, partly even within a stable population, but even more so as a consequence of conquest causing one population of humans to encroach, and even displace, territory that was previously held by a different population.

We now also see changes caused by differential birth rates between different populations that could well cause further changes of the sub-populations of people living in different parts of the world.

That 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

[iko]

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

Don'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