Are we impacting our own evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 08:30 AM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
One Vienna uni professor claims that the rising number in C-sextions is due to a overall shrinking in size of female pelvic bones that is the result of slim women being seen as more atractive and having higher chance of reproduction.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
We are certainly affecting our own evolution.

Ages ago, the biggest, strongest, most brutal, sexually aggressive males dominated and reproduced, in much the same fashion that other mammals on this planet reproduce (e.g. alpha lions, herd stallions, wolf pack leaders, and every other kind of mammal that exists in groups and always has an "alpha" male who dominates and reproduces the most offspring).

Ages ago, weak and sickly males never got the chance to reproduce.

Fortunately, ages ago, intelligence started to factor into our natural selection and humans became the dominant intelligent species on the planet.

Much of that has changed. Now size and strength and sexual aggression are becoming less desirable to many women. Now wealth and career and financial stability are becoming selection factors. This is driving nails into the coffin of natural selection and replacing it with artificial selection.

That may be a good thing. Our primary evolutionary advantage is intelligence and now our artificial selection is often prizing intelligence over our natural selection of physical brutishness, which means as a species we'll continue to get more intelligent over time (despite what the film Idiocracy thinks).

But it can also be bad. For example, today a person with a hereditary illness can easily find a mate and pass on those genes to his descendents. That would have been extremely rare ages ago but today it's fairly common. Modern medicine and healthcare make it possible for the weak and sickly to survive and reproduce and pass on their weak and sickly genetics.

(sorry ladies, this was a male-centric response, mainly because the impact of artificial selection is more obvious from this perspective, but it's certainly working in reverse, too, that females are chosen as mates more often for beauty and personality and intelligence than they are for being sturdy, hardy breeding material - again, an example of how artificial selection is working against natural selection)

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
I am on the opposite end, I don't think we can evolve anymore than getting a new immunity. Why? Because we have found an ecological fitting. This means humans are so adapted to one environment that we won't end up being able to adapt to a new environment. How does this affect human evolution? One word, technology. Humans today are different from other animals. Other animals must check for predators or prey every minute, humans check their phone every minute. Because of this humans don't adapt to their environment, instead we make the environment change completely for us. For example, in a cold region like Alaska we don't pass on traits over generations to make a new species of homo adapted for the cold, but instead we make technology so that we can live in the cold region with little trouble. However one can of course talk about humans without such conveniences. Even without the tech we have humans still live easier lives than most of our animal rivals, as humans at the most basic level have a house, large groups, fire, and with weapons like spears or guns we can hit prey from a distance. I am also not including the fact that humans from somewhere like the U.K. can give such conveniences to countries like Haiti. So in conclusion at best our evolution will only go to what we are immune to but no new traits.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 02:38 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  We are certainly affecting our own evolution.

Ages ago, the biggest, strongest, most brutal, sexually aggressive males dominated and reproduced, in much the same fashion that other mammals on this planet reproduce (e.g. alpha lions, herd stallions, wolf pack leaders, and every other kind of mammal that exists in groups and always has an "alpha" male who dominates and reproduces the most offspring).

Ages ago, weak and sickly males never got the chance to reproduce.

Fortunately, ages ago, intelligence started to factor into our natural selection and humans became the dominant intelligent species on the planet.

Much of that has changed. Now size and strength and sexual aggression are becoming less desirable to many women. Now wealth and career and financial stability are becoming selection factors. This is driving nails into the coffin of natural selection and replacing it with artificial selection.

Um, no. That is still natural selection (sexual selection). It is just selecting on different details.

Quote:That may be a good thing. Our primary evolutionary advantage is intelligence and now our artificial selection is often prizing intelligence over our natural selection of physical brutishness, which means as a species we'll continue to get more intelligent over time (despite what the film Idiocracy thinks).

Um, no. That is still natural selection (sexual selection). The details of the criteria have changed.

Quote:But it can also be bad. For example, today a person with a hereditary illness can easily find a mate and pass on those genes to his descendents. That would have been extremely rare ages ago but today it's fairly common. Modern medicine and healthcare make it possible for the weak and sickly to survive and reproduce and pass on their weak and sickly genetics.

Um, no. That is still natural selection. The selection pressures have changed.

Quote:(sorry ladies, this was a male-centric response, mainly because the impact of artificial selection is more obvious from this perspective, but it's certainly working in reverse, too, that females are chosen as mates more often for beauty and personality and intelligence than they are for being sturdy, hardy breeding material - again, an example of how artificial selection is working against natural selection)

Still no artificial selection here. No

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 02:54 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  I am on the opposite end, I don't think we can evolve anymore than getting a new immunity. Why? Because we have found an ecological fitting. This means humans are so adapted to one environment that we won't end up being able to adapt to a new environment.

No, the environment provides selection pressure, but there is still sexual selection and genetic drift. Nothing is ever so fitted to an environment that evolution is not possible.

Quote: How does this affect human evolution? One word, technology. Humans today are different from other animals. Other animals must check for predators or prey every minute, humans check their phone every minute. Because of this humans don't adapt to their environment, instead we make the environment change completely for us. For example, in a cold region like Alaska we don't pass on traits over generations to make a new species of homo adapted for the cold, but instead we make technology so that we can live in the cold region with little trouble. However one can of course talk about humans without such conveniences. Even without the tech we have humans still live easier lives than most of our animal rivals, as humans at the most basic level have a house, large groups, fire, and with weapons like spears or guns we can hit prey from a distance. I am also not including the fact that humans from somewhere like the U.K. can give such conveniences to countries like Haiti. So in conclusion at best our evolution will only go to what we are immune to but no new traits.

How is this not natural selection? We have only modified the selection criteria.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 08:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm swayed by Dennett's Compatibilism
I'm no philosopher, but personally I see compatibilism as an awkward stretch in order to maintain a moral belief system. It twists words like "free will" and it ignores the fact that all energy, all matter, all events, all actions and reactions are due to the natural known physical laws of which our consciousness has no power to overrule.

The mechanics of a clock ensures that the second hand will move forward one step every second thus it is impossible for the hand not to do this, a compatibilist will say that the clock had free will and chose to move the hand forward one step every second because it was the moral thing to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 04:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm swayed by Dennett's Compatibilism
I'm no philosopher, but personally I see compatibilism as an awkward stretch in order to maintain a moral belief system. It twists words like "free will" and it ignores the fact that all energy, all matter, all events, all actions and reactions are due to the natural known physical laws of which our consciousness has no power to overrule.

The mechanics of a clock ensures that the second hand will move forward one step every second thus it is impossible for the hand not to do this, a compatibilist will say that the clock had free will and chose to move the hand forward one step every second because it was the moral thing to do.

Yabut, the clock is not conscious.

You don't think that the act of thinking alters brain function? I most certainly do.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-05-2014, 05:04 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 05:06 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 03:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the environment provides selection pressure, but there is still sexual selection and genetic drift. Nothing is ever so fitted to an environment that evolution is not possible.

I know that, that's why I said to immunity. I meant humans will not evolve like speciation or a new sub species because we can make the environment change for our comfort. I know humans evolve immunity to diseases. Here is what I mean.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18778274

"Ecological fitting is the process whereby organisms colonize and persist in novel environments, use novel resources or form novel associations with other species as a result of the suites of traits that they carry at the time they encounter the novel condition"

Humans have done this as we have a novel environment (houses, apartments, mansions) and we have a a novel association with animals we call pets. This is what I meant when humans won't evolve.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Are we impacting our own evolution?
(23-05-2014 05:06 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:45 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, the environment provides selection pressure, but there is still sexual selection and genetic drift. Nothing is ever so fitted to an environment that evolution is not possible.

I know that, that's why I said to immunity. I meant humans will not evolve like speciation or a new sub species because we can make the environment change for our comfort. I know humans evolve immunity to diseases. Here is what I mean.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18778274

"Ecological fitting is the process whereby organisms colonize and persist in novel environments, use novel resources or form novel associations with other species as a result of the suites of traits that they carry at the time they encounter the novel condition"

Humans have done this as we have a novel environment (houses, apartments, mansions) and we have a a novel association with animals we call pets. This is what I meant when humans won't evolve.

There could become reproductively isolated groups of humans, and that would allow speciation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: