Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2017, 07:33 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 06:15 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I can envision a future in which a particular genetic code is selected for optimal results in physical & mental traits. All males & females would essentially look alike. A world of twins that are incubated in an artificial womb.

In this aspect evolution would be sidestepped because there wouldn't be any more natural reproduction.

"Ford's in his flivver", eh?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 11:13 AM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 07:32 AM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(11-08-2017 09:04 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They aren't.
But now we can fiddle with genes when that happens.

EVERYBODY's genes? When is that going to happen.

You can get all the information you need to start epigenetically manipulating your own genetic makeup now for $99 and a swab of spit. Might want to know what you're doing first though. If you can understand your methylation results from Genetic Genie, you're likely informed enough.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 06:15 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I can envision a future in which a particular genetic code is selected for optimal results in physical & mental traits. All males & females would essentially look alike. A world of twins that are incubated in an artificial womb.

In this aspect evolution would be sidestepped because there wouldn't be any more natural reproduction.

I'm somewhat paraphrasing and agreeing with Underground here, but my two cents:

It would still be evolution and it would still be, I think, "evolution by natural selection" though not by natural reproduction. If we could bypass sex and childbirth and create our offspring atom by atom choosing features off a menu, it's still a product of evolved creatures, us, using their evolved tools, essentially no different from a cat using claws.

To take it a step further, I would argue even if the parents choose a child (it pops out of some kind of bio-birthing machine) using DNA that is not their own, (they wanted a smarter prettier kid, whatever) this would still constitute "evolution by natural selection." I think. Somebody's genes are getting advanced into the future, so by definition they must have been the most fit!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
12-08-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 04:00 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 06:15 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I can envision a future in which a particular genetic code is selected for optimal results in physical & mental traits. All males & females would essentially look alike. A world of twins that are incubated in an artificial womb.

In this aspect evolution would be sidestepped because there wouldn't be any more natural reproduction.

I'm somewhat paraphrasing and agreeing with Underground here, but my two cents:

It would still be evolution and it would still be, I think, "evolution by natural selection" though not by natural reproduction. If we could bypass sex and childbirth and create our offspring atom by atom choosing features off a menu, it's still a product of evolved creatures, us, using their evolved tools, essentially no different from a cat using claws.

To take it a step further, I would argue even if the parents choose a child (it pops out of some kind of bio-birthing machine) using DNA that is not their own, (they wanted a smarter prettier kid, whatever) this would still constitute "evolution by natural selection." I think. Somebody's genes are getting advanced into the future, so by definition they must have been the most fit!

When you pick and choose traits, then build a person based on those choices, that's manufacturing, not evolution.

Evolution describes the natural process by which populations change over time. The only requirement is that the species must be fit enough to reproduce.

I can see where you're coming from though.
If humans begin to manufacture other human beings, then nature itself is no longer the driving factor, but instead, humans are.

You could even create a society of human beings that can't naturally reproduce via sex organs and yet still maintain a civilization that keeps creating more humans as desired, keeping populations low.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 04:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When you pick and choose traits, then build a person based on those choices, that's manufacturing, not evolution.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, that's what's weird and I actually re-wrote my post a couple times arguing with myself whether it was "evolution" or not. I can't help coming to the conclusion that it is, so I challenge you: How is this manufacturing not "natural"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post
12-08-2017, 08:40 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 06:21 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When you pick and choose traits, then build a person based on those choices, that's manufacturing, not evolution.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, that's what's weird and I actually re-wrote my post a couple times arguing with myself whether it was "evolution" or not. I can't help coming to the conclusion that it is, so I challenge you: How is this manufacturing not "natural"?

I think it can be argued either way. Seems to be more a matter of perspective. I think we'll get there eventually, unless we all get blasted in a thermonuclear Armageddon situation. To me, it seems like the natural evolutionary process that we're headed toward. I think there will be some people who won't like the idea, but having a child guaranteed to be healthy and free from genetic defect seems to be a smart choice.

It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 09:21 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 06:21 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When you pick and choose traits, then build a person based on those choices, that's manufacturing, not evolution.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, that's what's weird and I actually re-wrote my post a couple times arguing with myself whether it was "evolution" or not. I can't help coming to the conclusion that it is, so I challenge you: How is this manufacturing not "natural"?

Is it "natural" to have a cardiac bypass, and change the day you will die ? Is it "natural" to take penicillin and unnaturally get over an infection ? Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-08-2017 09:29 PM by Rahn127.)
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 06:21 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(12-08-2017 04:56 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  When you pick and choose traits, then build a person based on those choices, that's manufacturing, not evolution.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, that's what's weird and I actually re-wrote my post a couple times arguing with myself whether it was "evolution" or not. I can't help coming to the conclusion that it is, so I challenge you: How is this manufacturing not "natural"?

Manufacturing is not the same as natural reproduction.
Manufacturing is planned design.

If a machine is required to manufacture a person, then it's not natural because that machine must be manufactured. That machine cannot naturally occur.

Human evolution occurs when a male produces millions of random sperm and one of those millions hooks up with an egg of the female persuasion.

The resulting combination is random, not planned and is different than it's parents in many ways, but also contains enough genetic similarities to be family.

It's those small genetic changes over time that can cause new species to develop.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 09:35 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 09:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Is it "natural" to have a cardiac bypass, and change the day you will die ? Is it "natural" to take penicillin and unnaturally get over an infection ? Big Grin

I don't see how it's not! It's no less natural than, say, a monkey using a rock to pry open a coconut (or some such example).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-08-2017, 10:00 PM
RE: Medicine/technology adversely affecting evolution?
(12-08-2017 09:24 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Manufacturing is not the same as natural reproduction.
Manufacturing is planned design.

Did I not go out of my way to stress I didn't mean natural reproduction? My hypothetical did exclude fucking, yes. I'm trying to dig deeper here. Don't get too hung up on the word "manufacturing." Manufacturing implies intent and plenty of evolution occurs with intent, at least since we humans got our big brains cranked up. If you don't agree, ask every dog in existence.

Quote:If a machine is required to manufacture a person, then it's not natural because that machine must be manufactured. That machine cannot naturally occur.

Machines not involved, check. Though, actually, to take it another level I don't think even that would mean "evolution" is not going on. Imagine a future where humans themselves don't even control the future of human generations, imagine machines do it, and they choose which combinations of genetics are allowed to continue in human form into the future...say they want only a world of Brad Pitts and Anjela Jolies. I think this too would technically satisfy the definition of "evolution." It was a human process that set it all in motion...however weird that process ends up looking...and the output in the future is, those are the humans that get spit out. By definition, they were the "fittest" in an evolutionary sense (maybe our robot overlords wanted the opposites of Brad Pitts and Jolies!). I don't know if we can qualitatively say this is a different process than, say, our ancestors who evolved big brains that enabled them to do this little trick or that little trick.


Quote:Human evolution occurs when a male produces millions of random sperm and one of those millions hooks up with an egg of the female persuasion.

The resulting combination is random, not planned and is different than it's parents in many ways, but also contains enough genetic similarities to be family.

It's those small genetic changes over time that can cause new species to develop.

Thank you, got it. See above.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: