ChatterBank5 mins ago
Evolution
27 Answers
This is something I have firmly believed for a long time.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20081007/tuk -human-evolution-coming-to-a-halt-6323e80.html
What do you think?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20081007/tuk -human-evolution-coming-to-a-halt-6323e80.html
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LoftyLottie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Very interesting, but as Gromit says it takes no account of possible future changes to the environment. If the earth heats up, for instance, those not engineered to cope with heat may die out faster than those who are.
But the points about natural selection and mutation no longer having as much influence are intriguing, I hadn't thought of it that way before.
But the points about natural selection and mutation no longer having as much influence are intriguing, I hadn't thought of it that way before.
I must admit it was the 'natural selection' component which I believed would slow down evolution and had not really considered 'mutation'.
I think we have reached our limits of evolving for the better and that things might go downhill from here. I think that snagged's joke might not be too far from the truth when the inevitable changes for the worse happen.
I think we have reached our limits of evolving for the better and that things might go downhill from here. I think that snagged's joke might not be too far from the truth when the inevitable changes for the worse happen.
I think he's absolutly wrong.
1/ the developed world represents only a small fraction of human population.
2/ People think of evolution in terms of growing an extra arm or something like that. Subtle evolutionary changes are likely to be much slower to detect. A greater ability to deal with a high fat diet for example.
3/ Although modern medecine allows people with less desirable attributes to reproduce, this is also a form of evolution. Poorer eyesight for example. There is no law that says specific evolution change must be beneficial to the species if other evolutionary characteristics can compensate
4/ The fact that there is an increased abundance of people who might not normally survive does not negate the fact that those with beneficial characteristics continue to be born - Jones points out himself that fathers are increasingly older creating more variation. There is less competition for resources so beneficial characteristics will still survive. I think he assumes they will not reinforce each other because he assumes people reproduce with random partners - we know that's not true people favor partners like themselves.
I know he's just stirring up the debate but I think an overly simplistic view of evolution is at work here.
1/ the developed world represents only a small fraction of human population.
2/ People think of evolution in terms of growing an extra arm or something like that. Subtle evolutionary changes are likely to be much slower to detect. A greater ability to deal with a high fat diet for example.
3/ Although modern medecine allows people with less desirable attributes to reproduce, this is also a form of evolution. Poorer eyesight for example. There is no law that says specific evolution change must be beneficial to the species if other evolutionary characteristics can compensate
4/ The fact that there is an increased abundance of people who might not normally survive does not negate the fact that those with beneficial characteristics continue to be born - Jones points out himself that fathers are increasingly older creating more variation. There is less competition for resources so beneficial characteristics will still survive. I think he assumes they will not reinforce each other because he assumes people reproduce with random partners - we know that's not true people favor partners like themselves.
I know he's just stirring up the debate but I think an overly simplistic view of evolution is at work here.
For once I agree totally with Gromit.
The earth changes continually, too often (as with global warming) we look at too smaller section of the earths history and make assumtions.
We will be hit by a meteroite or some such simiar catastophy will befall us and I have no doubt the human race (albeit in smaller numbers) will evolve to cope.
The earth changes continually, too often (as with global warming) we look at too smaller section of the earths history and make assumtions.
We will be hit by a meteroite or some such simiar catastophy will befall us and I have no doubt the human race (albeit in smaller numbers) will evolve to cope.
These kicks happen all the time.
What do you call AIDS?
The human race has been locked in evolutionary warfare with viruses for millions of years.
Just because we don't grow an attitional arm doesn't mean we don't evolve bio-chemically.
There's an often cited example of how westerners can metabolise alcohol better than orientals due to an enzyme that evolved due to Europeans drinking acohol as opposed to learning how to boil water.
That may or may not be true, I'm really not qualified to say, but it's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
What do you call AIDS?
The human race has been locked in evolutionary warfare with viruses for millions of years.
Just because we don't grow an attitional arm doesn't mean we don't evolve bio-chemically.
There's an often cited example of how westerners can metabolise alcohol better than orientals due to an enzyme that evolved due to Europeans drinking acohol as opposed to learning how to boil water.
That may or may not be true, I'm really not qualified to say, but it's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
-- answer removed --
Actually that might be right for a different reason.
What proportion of mixed race to same race marriages do you think there are? I don't know but I'd be amazed if it were 10%.
However how many people these days eat enough leafy vegtables? - precious few.
If we don't get enough vitamin D from that we might darken to generate more through our skins!
But maybe not! Trying to second guess evolution's more of a mugs game than roulette
What proportion of mixed race to same race marriages do you think there are? I don't know but I'd be amazed if it were 10%.
However how many people these days eat enough leafy vegtables? - precious few.
If we don't get enough vitamin D from that we might darken to generate more through our skins!
But maybe not! Trying to second guess evolution's more of a mugs game than roulette
That is if you really believe Darwins theory, after all that is only what it is, a theory.
One denial story I heard was about a certain type of bird that lays it's eggs in a cleft branch of a tree. The bird has a soft underside and is able to land on the eggs softly without dislodging or breaking them.
What the person who was trying to disprove Darwin's theory said "how did this bird evolve to enable it to carry out this maneuver, and still keep it's eggs safe?" How did it's predecessors manage?
One denial story I heard was about a certain type of bird that lays it's eggs in a cleft branch of a tree. The bird has a soft underside and is able to land on the eggs softly without dislodging or breaking them.
What the person who was trying to disprove Darwin's theory said "how did this bird evolve to enable it to carry out this maneuver, and still keep it's eggs safe?" How did it's predecessors manage?
Slowingdown?? It' bleedin reversed mate! Mankind has found ways of tolerating and propagating inperfections. The most obvious one is dodgy eyesight, any other species and that would get you eaten before you could breed. You could argue that creating the conditions for imperfections to live comfortable lives and pass on imperfect genes is a sort of evolution plus but evolution as in natural selection is no more.
anotholdgit your story seems to back up the theory of evolution to me - the hypothetical birds predecessors would have been something similar to the current bird but not quite e.g. would have had something of a soft undercarriage that only allowed maybe 80% of the eggs to survive landing, in this way when a mutation occurred that produced a softer underside this was then passed on to more off-spring than the other competing birds as this mutation would have a greater success rate when it came to survival of eggs e.g. maybe 90%, so in time softness was increased througout the whole species.
I feel there is quite a lot of truth in this story and i think what the man is getting at is that this is the high of our evolution unless there is some form of terrible event that starts wiping us out in large numbers, evolution needs death to proceed and if we all reproduce no matter what how can natural selection work?
also in our current evolved state does anyone else thing that those with prehaps the best genetic make up no longer have a breeding advantage - the civilizing process has stopped most spreading their genetic code far and wide which surely isn't that good for our development.
I feel there is quite a lot of truth in this story and i think what the man is getting at is that this is the high of our evolution unless there is some form of terrible event that starts wiping us out in large numbers, evolution needs death to proceed and if we all reproduce no matter what how can natural selection work?
also in our current evolved state does anyone else thing that those with prehaps the best genetic make up no longer have a breeding advantage - the civilizing process has stopped most spreading their genetic code far and wide which surely isn't that good for our development.
Jake, didn't he say fathers are getting younger, not older?
As for Aids, I imagine that's just the sort of thing he's talking about. In bygone days that sort of illness would kill its victims, as Aids did at first. But increasingly victims are surviving as treatments are developed. As we have developed glasses and contact lenses for weak eyesight so the poorly-sighted survive longer too. So increasingly it's survival of the unfit as well as the fit.
BBC blog here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/20 08/10/is_human_evolution_over.html#commentsanc hor
As for Aids, I imagine that's just the sort of thing he's talking about. In bygone days that sort of illness would kill its victims, as Aids did at first. But increasingly victims are surviving as treatments are developed. As we have developed glasses and contact lenses for weak eyesight so the poorly-sighted survive longer too. So increasingly it's survival of the unfit as well as the fit.
BBC blog here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/today/tomfeilden/20 08/10/is_human_evolution_over.html#commentsanc hor
The theory of evolution is 'only' a theory in the same way the theory of gravity is 'only' a theory or atomic theory is 'only' a theory or germ theory is 'only' a theory. Put it another way, the theory of evolution is 'only' a theory in the same way Bill Gates is 'only' a multi-billionaire.
'Theory' when used by scientists has a very specific meaning and it doesn't NOT mean 'it may or may not be true', it means a hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to attempts to disprove it, and which accurately describes a natural phenomenon.
'Theory' when used by scientists has a very specific meaning and it doesn't NOT mean 'it may or may not be true', it means a hypothesis that has repeatedly stood up to attempts to disprove it, and which accurately describes a natural phenomenon.
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News20 mins ago
