it doesn't interfere, it merely adds to evolution. genetic disorders stay in our gene pool, but the point is moot because we are able to treat them anyways. so there is no point to have selective pressure against it.
it doesn't interfere, it merely adds to evolution. genetic disorders stay in our gene pool, but the point is moot because we are able to treat them anyways. so there is no point to have selective pressure against it.
There has been no significant changes in the human brain in the last fifty thousand years, I doubt there will be any in the next fifty thousand years by then the next ice age will wipe out all the mammals anyway.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
i dunno, cancer/diabetes etc still killing plenty. some before reproductive age. and it can be general fitness over several generations. you may survive one generation, but your children might be crack whores or such, and their children die as gangmembers. so if your genes dwindle over long periods of time the chances are higher of you dissapearing, or simply being swamped out by others. can't think so short term.
I wonder if this explains why men with small penises still exist. Think about it. Women prefer bigger penises so men with small penises don't get a chance to mate and pass their "small penis" DNA to their children. This should produce only male children with big penises and yet there are still men with small penises in this world today.
Actually, penis sice has never really mattered, until these times. It was never really mentioned in the old texts, even though they do mention alot of sex and stuff. So it's fairly clear they focused more on the man.
I thought about htis recently. People have gotten so dependent on technology, that without it, they wouldn't survive. For example, put a random sample of people on a deserted island. A bunch would die from allergic reactions, asthma, people would have trouble giving natural births, etc. But that's human evolution. Instead of natural selection, human evolution is "fixing" everything, allowing people to live normal lives. That birth canal example was a good one. This is good in a way, because it allows people to live. But bad because more human functions will have to be "assisted" by drugs, procedures, surgeries.
Invariably, any step up is an inferred "evolution" whether it is strictly limited to man or associated with everything. We, and everything around us, are evolving relative to our location on Earth. We, in the United States and other developed countries, are evolving in a manner that's different than the aboriginies in the plaines of Africa and Australia partly attributed to our leaps in the medication front. It's just a fact of life.
I find it an interesting question. I think there are really two ways of going about answering it based on two points of view on natural selection. On one view, natural selection is governed by natural laws. In this case it is not an accident that any particular specie develops. Now the question becomes one of our affect on the process and whether we can choose to "break the laws". On the other view, natural selection is not governed by natural laws, and the fact that any specie exists is merely an accident. On this view it seems that we can influence the process. I tend to think that in the former case, we can't really choose to break the laws, and in the latter that if we can influence the process then we have moral and prudential obligations to do so.
Silly you.
There is no such thing as Evolution.
Now go back to church or public school in Georgia, kansas, Texas etc that will tell you so.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
evolution is evolving... technology is the new evolution why wait a billion years to upgrade your optic nerves when in the next generations you could just get ocular implants that see at higher resolution with perfect clarity?
evolution is so last millenium
evolution is so last millenium
IAteYourMother
Lifer
- Nov 3, 2004
- 10,491
- 22
- 81
Well...modern medicine counters natural selection.
In a system of true natural selection, the sick and infirm would die younger/earlier but medicine allows them to continue to live and "mate"...so...
In a system of true natural selection, the sick and infirm would die younger/earlier but medicine allows them to continue to live and "mate"...so...
Originally posted by: quasarsky
feeling like i read this same thread before but
good thoughts here
Development of the physical human brain is part of evolution, but any information acquired throughout one's life is NOT. So smarter humans doesn't necessarily translate into a better gene pool.
I think in a few thousand years if humans are still around, the gene pool will be so mixed that everyone will have some sort of disorder, but modern medicine will be able to treat, and perhaps cure it as well. As a result, the medical industry will be an evergrowing industry.
Prenatal selection for every couple if they choose.
I don't want my kids to have my half-flat feet that give me cramps, my allergies to certain flowers, my piss poor vision, etc.
*waits for someone to make a claim that this is Eugenics, that it's "discrimination", and that I'm a nazi*
True...a hundred years ago Hawking would've died very young. If Feynman had lived only a few decades, his cancer may have been treatable and he would've lived longer.
Mozart could've lived into his 70-80's...etc.
I think the benefit of medicine outweighs the potential detriment but I do also believe that there is some long term risk to the human gene pool.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
well it mattered but not in the way u think generally. the greeks thought it should be a tidy reasonably sized package, not some huge dong which was vulgar and beastly. thats why you see the statues with normal penis size instead of giant donkey schlong.
then of course theres the matter of us not walking around naked.
we are evolving to live in large cities and such. how well one can function in society is an advantage.
of course there is also self selection at work. look at "successful" women such as sharon stone or nicole kidman. childless and aging, too late for sharon. she contributes no genes to the future and has effectively wiped her self out. then there are the single child couples. having one or none contributes so little to the future generations you might as well not exist. just imagine several couples, half have one child, the others have 3. after 3 generations the single child couple would have dwindled to an insignifacant portion of the total population.
Do you have any idea how much humanity interfears with pure evolution in general? If you're not living out in nature without any form of tools or artifical shelter, you're interfearing with evolution. Modern medicine is the least of it.
I'm so glad Social Darwinism and the Darwin Awards exist. Without them I'd have to find a new way to feel like I'm superior to others.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter