Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 787
Evolution. Page 32 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

- Stephen F Roberts
 nipoleon
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 788
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 12:07:45 PM
There is a very simple difference between science and religion.

A good scientist has no problem changing his opinion in accordance with the data.
If the data shows a theory is wrong, the scientist will reject the theory or change it accordingly .

The religious believer never changes his opinion no matter what the data shows.
If the data shows a religious belief wrong, he simply clings to the belief even harder and questions the data.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 789
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 12:12:02 PM

No. A fact does not need the justification of an explanation. Evolution is not a fact.

So, are you arguing that genetic changes are not inherited by offspring?

Were it a fact, people would not argue that it does not exist, much like people don't argue that the sky is blue, that the air we breathe.

The Flat Earth Society believes the Earth is flat and backs it up with passages from genesis and other biblical verses. Do you also want to claim that the shape of the Earth is in dispute just because some people are arguing that it is flat based on the biblical inerrancy or are you willing to concede that the shape of the Earth is a fact, in spite of religious arguments to the contrary? Facts are facts regardless of whether or not people argue about what the facts are.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 790
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 4:50:12 PM

What does passing on a persons genes have to do with whether or not the genes being passed on have "evlolved", or were genetically changed? I fail to see how one has anything to do with the other.


Since reproduction is the primary mechanism by which genetic changes are passed on to future generations, I would consider this a significant mechanism for evolution. Don'tcha think?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 791
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 5:32:52 PM

I misspelled "evlolved".... sorry, not the first time, not the last. From what I understand, evolution is when an organism "evolves"........ reproduction just passes it on.


An "organism" doesn't evolve. Populations of organisms evolve over time. A single individual may develop a genetic change that gets passed on to future generations. If that change imparts an adaptational advantage, then the species progresses. Over time the changes accumulate and you have a new species.

That's evolution in action.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 792
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 6:34:52 PM

So then, a single individual may develop a genetic change, but that is not considered evolutionary?


Go back and read my post.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 793
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 8:13:44 PM

What does passing on a persons genes have to do with whether or not the genes being passed on have "evlolved", or were genetically changed?

Google evolution and fruit flies.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 794
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 9:43:18 PM
Why is it the people who think there's no evidence for evolution seem to think that automatically that means "god created us" is the only other option?

If they won't accept & brush aside evidence that supports evolution, perhaps they'd care to give us some of their evidence ( that it was "god" ) so we can examine it.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 795
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/22/2010 11:23:03 PM
At it's most basic, it is, in that most babies are different at least genetically. That's the simple fact of evolution.

To describe things in perhaps more familiar terms, a paternity test is a tool utterly dependent on evolution. Sperm and ova are produced from the DNA of the parents, but with errors in every single germ cell. A baby produced from two of those germ cells will obviously have that unique set of alterations, but it will ALSO have the overall greatest genetic similarity to its two parents. So similar that a paternity test [and many similar tests of ancestry] is considered solid proof of parentage. In other tests of ancestry, multiple generations are sometimes evaluated in the same way. Father has unique genetic markers which are passed to his son. Son has his father's markers plus unique markers of his own. Grandson has his grandfather's and father's markers plus unique ones of his own, and so-on. To say nothing of what happens when maternal and paternal DNA recombine.

Bottom line is, evolution is a rather decisive fact - inheritance with change. Claims that it's only evolution if it increases complexity, "improves" the organism, replaces the parent species, etc. ad nauseum are fallacies - No true Scotsman; moving the goalposts.

So WHY does evolution happen in the ways we observe directly [eg., Caridina murrayata] or indirectly [eg. anything involving fossils]? See "THEORY of evolution" for an answer, or feel free to substitute another hypothesis which is consistent with the natural world and at least somewhat predictive.


When we measure the genetic differences between sibling species, we get a benchmark for how much genetic change is associated with speciation in a particular group of organisms. Using fossils, geography, geologic events, and other signals, we can estimate a time for last-shared-ancestor between pretty much any two organisms. So guess what happens when we take that initial benchmark [as percent change per xx years] and multiply it by that time of last-shared-ancestor? That's right - we get a percentage which is statistically equal to the measured differences. This is ToE accurately predicting a result [and an example which is repeated with some frequency].

To clarify by example - one could measure the differences between chickens [domestic jungle fowl] and jungle fowl, and between these and pheasants [a cousin]. Since we created the first from the second, we have a strong case for where and when the two parted ways. The pheasant acts as a longer-term calibration. We repeat the process for North New Guinea and South New Guinea crocodiles, which are sibling species which have been reproductively isolated by the mountain range between them. Now we run the clocks back, adjusting for the different reproductive rates [number of generations per year]. Percent difference between crocodiles and birds requires a time period which works out to the approximate time that crocodiles diverged from dinosaurs. This is a really rough example. In reality, a great many birds of most or all major groups have been tested and compared in this way, as have all crocodilians. This greatly enhances the consistency of the results. Additional calibrations are added by comparing the modern skeletons with many fossil skeletons. The latter are aged radiologically and stratigraphically, and provide fixed points for when particular features and combinations of features absolutely DID exist.

Following the fossil track record, we can actually SEE that most "major" changes are simply accumulations of small changes. Genetic comparisons then confirm that highly divergent organisms have both the genetic differences and the time required to diverge from a common fossil ancestor.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 796
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/23/2010 5:49:49 AM
duplicate post...sorry
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 797
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/23/2010 5:53:33 AM
another duplicate...editing malfunction.
Next..
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 798
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/23/2010 5:54:10 AM
The following article maintains that modern day humans are far more different gentically, than people 5000 years ago were different than Neanderthals. After the last glacial retreat and advent of agriculture, the population explosion and dispersal kicked in several genetic changes in diverse places.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753

Overview of article above...
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving/

Look out, future, because here we come: scientists say the speed of human evolution increased rapidly during the last 40,000 years — and it’s only going to get faster.

The findings, published today by a team of U.S. anthropologists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, overturn the theory that modern life’s relative ease has slowed or even stopped human adaptation. Selective pressures are still at work; they just happen to be different than those faced by our distant ancestors.

"We’re more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.

In the study, researchers analzyed genomes from 270 people belonging to four disparate ethnic groups: Han Chinese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe,
Japanese and Utah Mormons. By comparing areas of difference and similarity, they determined that about seven percent of the genome has undergone significant change since the end of the last Ice Age.


If human beings had always evolved at such a rapid clip, said the researchers, genetic differences between people and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are.


continued at link..
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 799
Evolution.
Posted: 11/23/2010 10:10:35 PM
^^^ great, now I have visions of Eloi & Morlocks dancing in my head
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 800
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/24/2010 12:50:31 AM
There are a number of reasons why this very long-term diachronic scenario has at least “some” plausibility (presuming of course that we survive as a species), one general consideration being that the developed world is making it increasingly easier for assortative mating/homophily to take hold -- in other words, for people with similar physical and cognitive traits and overall mate values to find each other and pair-bond, with websites like this being but one of the paragon exemplars of such an accelerating trend.


Mike Judge already covered this in his film," Idiocracy". There is a flaw in your theory as well. From what I've seen in the news, your subclass of tall, attractive, types, are far from showing any semblence of super-intelligence, whereas your other subclass of the short and uglies, are the thinkers. Paris Hilton vs. Danny Divito comes to mind.

There are two kinds of people, those who believe there are two kinds of people and those who don't.

Meanwhile, back in reality, some jellyfish apparently got on the good side of their creator or evolved enough and are doing the immortality dance.
http://tiny.cc/i6zt9
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 801
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/24/2010 5:47:54 AM
RE Msg: 1701 by Earthpuppy:
Look out, future, because here we come: scientists say the speed of human evolution increased rapidly during the last 40,000 years — and it’s only going to get faster.

The findings, published today by a team of U.S. anthropologists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, overturn the theory that modern life’s relative ease has slowed or even stopped human adaptation. Selective pressures are still at work; they just happen to be different than those faced by our distant ancestors.

"We’re more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.

In the study, researchers analzyed genomes from 270 people belonging to four disparate ethnic groups: Han Chinese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe,
Japanese and Utah Mormons. By comparing areas of difference and similarity, they determined that about seven percent of the genome has undergone significant change since the end of the last Ice Age.


If human beings had always evolved at such a rapid clip, said the researchers, genetic differences between people and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are.
This confuses me.

AFAIK, evolution is supposed to be about organisms developing mutations at an approximately uniformly random rate within a population, and then those with the less-advantageous genetics being weeded out by reproducing less, due to selective pressures of early death, infertility, not being selected as a mate, etc.

AFAIK, only 150 years ago, people often used to have 10 kids or more, and see most of them die. Women died all the time in childbirth. Men died all the time in war. Both genders used to die all the time in infancy or teenage from any number of diseases, from lack of food, malnutrition, and a whole host of things. In order to compensate for all this death, people used to have lots and lots of kids, and most would die.

As there was such a high death rate per capita, there was a far higher evolutionary pressure. So most of the bad mutations would be killed off. Only the strongest mutations would survive, and they would be several times more likely to be stronger than the most popular genes in their time. So they would be several times more likely to proliferate, and would thus be far more likely to become the dominant genes in succeeding generations. As a result, the genetics of humans should change over time, but only those mutations which were likely to generate a greater reproductive success, meaning far less mutations, and those would be likely to become the dominant genes, so there would be far greater similarity between humans.

However, in our modern day, when there is a much lower death rate per capita, one would expect to see far more bad mutations survive, and because one would expect so many more mutations to survive, there would be a far greater amount of dissimilarity in mutations between humans.

So I WOULD expect to see that humans have a greater dissimilarity today, but only because we are engineering that far more bad mutations survive, and that would indicate that our evolution is slowing, not speeding up.

As I said, I'm confused, because that seems to contradict the conclusions that the researchers reached using the same data.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 802
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/24/2010 8:40:17 AM
You're confused because you don't *quite* grasp the whole process. Close, but not quite.

First, to clarify for all [and something I think you do perceive], evolution is not driven by time, but by reproduction. When DNA is replicated, a variety of errors are made. Thus, the more often it is copied, the faster evolution takes place. With a constantly growing human population now numbering several billion, the raw numbers of humans being born is what fuels the evolutionary rate. Given human tendencies to reproduce within their race, language, and culture, I can see Homo sapiens diverging into a mosaic of new species, more or less based upon the races they belong to now. The rate of evolution within a species isn't constant. It's equal to the reproductive rate [raw mutation/evolutionary rate] multiplied by the population size. As the population grows, so does the rate of evolution.

While selection includes death (a great deal of it), death is influenced by luck and isn't simply predicated upon an evolutionary weakness. The "weak" are not the ONLY unlucky ones...they're just the first or most likely to lose out. Many mutations disappear purely because they were in an unlucky individual. Increased overall survival means that more mutations get a chance to spread in the population, regardless of their value. Most mutations are trivial and do not cause enough harm to prevent maturation and reproduction.

In addition, many "defects" are not the product of a single mutation - they depend on a combination of less-than-ideal traits. Alone, each may actually be advantageous. Thus, such defects are likely to persist within the population because each of the parts alone is beneficial or neutral. Other "bad" genes are actually corrected by additional genes, which means that the defective one may then be free to be co-opted for another purpose. See also "HOX", among others - a gene is duplicated, one copy becomes altered and one fulfills the original role. A centipede leg becomes an antenna, or a mouth part, etc.

so...


So I WOULD expect to see that humans have a greater dissimilarity today, but only because we are engineering that far more bad mutations survive, and that would indicate that our evolution is slowing, not speeding up.

We are engineering ALL mutations to survive. The worst are in the minority and are still unlikely to reproduce. Regardless, ALL mutations are evolution. The survival of bad ones does not slow mutation. In fact, that can actually give such genes a second chance at producing a novel beneficial combination.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 803
Evolution.
Posted: 11/24/2010 2:09:08 PM

Given human tendencies to reproduce within their race, language, and culture, I can see Homo sapiens diverging into a mosaic of new species, more or less based upon the races they belong to now. The rate of evolution within a species isn't constant.


Actually, for homo sapiens who are Earth-bound, I would venture to suggest that so called "differences" are more likely to be smoothed out by the fact that populations once culturally and geographically divided are, courtesy of technology and increased trade and inter-reliance, are going to blend.

True speciation requires a separation so, once humans start heading out into the universe, that's when you are likely to see a more profound speciation.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 804
Evolution.
Posted: 11/24/2010 2:46:37 PM
So the answer is YES........ Why then is it so politically incorrect to say so? Are we still so infantile?


Actually, I said no such thing. It wasn't the point of my post. I think the insistence that "evolution" implies some kind of "superiority" is ridiculous and tactic generally preferred by creationists to declare that "Darwinism" is some kind of justification for bigotry.

"Superiority" is a meaningless statement. How do you define "superior?" Or "inferior?" While it's possible that there are differences between separated groups of humans, humans regardless of "race" are essentially the same animal. I defy anyone to provide compelling evidence to the contrary.
 60to70
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 806
Evolution.
Posted: 11/25/2010 10:29:24 PM
What the heck does ontological and teleogical sense really mean? Nothing. Other than a play on words and higher learning. You are a man, you are woman. You are either white skinned or other skinned and then the differences end. You know that you are human...then. You will not disappear. These arguments that deny your existence will hopefully disappear due to a lack of common sense. Oh, sorry...we like to play and prove our very intelligence that amounts to ....yawn.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 807
Evolution: Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Posted: 11/26/2010 6:45:46 AM

But first, let’s play around with the idea a bit more. Here’s an interesting question. How long would you suppose it will be before an online dating website emerges -- be it a preexisting one or a new startup -- that offers genetic screening for its users?

Possibly anytime, but in my opinion, it would not be successful from a business standpoint. I'll give reasons as I go.

More to the point, what legal justification would there be to prohibit such firms to offer this service, and free individuals from consenting to and using their own genetic information with which to assess, and likewise “advertise” their genetic makeup to, potential suitors?

This might be only a minor impediment, but one objection that an intelligent person would have to doing this would be the loss of control over his/her genetic information. Any organization holding a lot of information about people is probably more valuable for data mining than its purported objective in collecting the data. DNA data would be especially valuable to law enforcement and insurance companies, both of which are negatives from the standpoint of a propective member. It's impossible to guarantee any information will never be used in a way other than that for which it was agreed, so the people most likely to want to join would be those who are only deluded about their intelligence, i.e., the type of person who thinks he/she is smart, but would trade his/her social security number for the promise of a free Big Mac. (Someone actually proved people would do this by setting up a website that did exactly that as proof-of-concept and lots of idiots were wiling to do it.) But, let's ignore that issue for the moment.

If X, a single man, had the alleles at the various quantitative trait loci that verified his above average IQ of 138 (conditional on the actual alleles being pinned-down by geneticists, that is), it’s a good bet he would want to advertise this fact -- a fact that he could now flaunt with the closest thing to pre-approved credit -- to various other single women on such a website.

Likewise, perhaps a single 20-something woman would want to advertise some genetic markers that were verified as being indicative of a youthful appearance well into her latter decades -- something which obviously would give her an edge on her competition.

That would be sort of the way that would work, too. In general, Very intelligent guys who are not good at socializing would seek out the attractive females they wouldn't otherwise run across. Women seem to seek out more intelligent guys (but only to a point - although people say thay value intelligence, what they mean is someone they feel is smart enough, but not too much smarter than they are.) Although there would be a lot of intelligent guys interested in meeting younger attractive women, there wouldn't be that many women looking for guys whose most marketable attribute is a high IQ.)

Such things aren’t just the realm of science fiction. For one thing, consider the finding just two years ago of a team in Sweden that discovered two versions of a gene in men, AVPR1A. One version is associated with marital infidelity, marital strife, and a few other negative characteristics, and the other version associated with essentially the opposite: monogamy, marital stability, and other pro-social traits. Men homozygous for the “non-monogamous” allelic version exhibit stronger effects, with lesser effects in heterozygotes. By contrast, the most monogamous are found with two copies of the monogamy-inducing allele.

Unfortunately, my pdf reader can't read that file, so I'll just mention a few possible problems with that.
(1) ``Associated with'' inplies correlation, but not necessarily causation, so that gene has some statistical significance, but precisely how it ties into marital fidelity is probably fairly nebulous and is certainly not the only factor. I'm not sure how well that would work as a marketing strategy (except on folks who aren't smart enough to understands the caveats.)
(2) What other factors might be related to that same gene? It could be that those men are monogamous and laid back because their personalities make them rather uninteresting to the extent that they don't have women chasing them and aren't motivated much by their libidos. In that case, they may not cheat, but they also may not be sexually attractive. By contrast, the highly desirable men, i.e., those in prestigious positions who wield power, seem to have lots of opportunities to cheat and often do, if the 6:00 news is any indication.

Again, I know a lot of women that would love to have this sort of information when screening guys for long-term potential.

Whether or not they would use it intelligenttly is another issue. Personally, I'm rather astounded by the number of people who actually believe the simple-minded mail settings that are advertised to accomplish more than is realitically possible. The most obvious is the IE filter, which cannot possible do what it is suggested it does, nor can it even thwart someone who trips it and is intelligent enough to figure out how to get around it. I exchanged lots of messages about sex to women who had that filter set, yet that didn't trip the filter. (The filter trips if a guy contacts at least 4 members in the IE ot other relationship category and trips if women contact at least 8. In other words, it's a marketing gimmick which is ``sold'' by advertising it as a feature people want, not because it could actually do what it's advertised to do.). I seriously doubt that anything more complex than that would get used any more intelligently. Basically, that would be a legal headache, since you'd have to have lawyers write up legally airtight disclaimers about it not being a guarantee of anything and since you can't waive negligence, keep them on staff to hadle lawsuits when the genetic predisposition for monogamy wasn't fulfilled.

I would think such a dating site would have the same fate as the sperm bank William Shockley created for the same sort of eugenics reasons. It seemed like a good idea on the surface, but in practice, it didn't gain much acceptance. By the time it bewcomes possible to pin down traits with enough certainty to accomplish eugenics objectives, it will most likely be possible to do it directly by altering genes. At best, I think that sort dating web site would be like a lot of other dotcoms. The few people who created will make a killing and get out before it went tits up, leaving someone holding the only asset - the genetic database - which would then get sold to the people one would least desire to have that that information - law enforcement, insurance companies and datamining companies.

The biggest problem with making it work is that people are attracted to those they find sexually appealing which doesn't necessarily correspond to a lot of so-called desirable traits, like fidelity or intelligence. There are already dating sites that distill the evolutionary objectives into dating - sites that cater to women who are looking for ``successful men.'' By evolutionary standards, wealthy men who wield power are evolutionary successes, regardless of what their actual genetic make up is. That attracts a lot of women. (Hell, even sugar dady sites attract lots of women who are looking to be supported by a guy who values them for their attractiveness.) Genetics would be too complex to sell to someone who understood the uncertainty involved, so it would most likely have appeal as a fad to people other than those for whom it was intended. If rationality was the norm, microsoft wouldn't hold the bulk of the operating system market.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 808
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/26/2010 8:56:23 AM
RE Msg: 1710 by FrogO_Oeyes:
First, to clarify for all [and something I think you do perceive], evolution is not driven by time, but by reproduction. When DNA is replicated, a variety of errors are made. Thus, the more often it is copied, the faster evolution takes place. With a constantly growing human population now numbering several billion, the raw numbers of humans being born is what fuels the evolutionary rate.
I can see your point, about greater numbers leading to more mutations.

It is simply my opinion that since the process called "evolution" refers to mutations AND their selection, that without that selection, it doesn't qualify to me as a process that could be called "evolution".

Given human tendencies to reproduce within their race, language, and culture, I can see Homo sapiens diverging into a mosaic of new species, more or less based upon the races they belong to now. The rate of evolution within a species isn't constant.
I considered this, and can agree in principle.

At the moment, humans are having a lot of kids, with much weaker selection processes to weed them out. So more mutations would naturally develop. However, global human society is beset by more and more potential issues, which are either not yet actualised, or are being artificially held back. So the selective process of extinction is not yet present, rather like the Cambrian explosion. However, I believe that the situation cannot continue forever. IMHO, those selection pressures will build, until eventually they act with great force.

For instance, if or when climate change eventually happens, it could be that humans find themselves best by different climates that are extreme compared to the present climates. Technology often requires very specific ranges of temperature and humidity. So it could be that it would no longer be possible for many humans to travel quickly and frequently between such climates, leading to isolated societies that are separated by their climate regions.

In such climates, it is entirely possible that much of current technology would no longer be able to work at all, as the climate might be out of the tolerances of said technology. So it could be that we could no longer use technology to protect us from our climate. So we might be again affected by evolutionary pressures from the weather, which could lead to those with less successful adaptations not surviving. This might lead to humans in those areas adapting more and more to their climate, until eventually we end up with different sub-species of homo sapiens in different climates. They might even reach a point at which they can no longer practically mate with each other, leading to possibly truly different species.

We might have 5 or more different species of human:
1) "Homo calidus", a species specially adapted to very hot environments.
2) "Homo frigidus", a species specially adapted to very cold and snowy environments.
3) "Homo tropicus", a species specially adapted to very mosit, tropical environments.
4) "Homo aquaticus", a species that have ended up returning to the water, much like whales.
5) "Homo technologicus", a species that still maintains the ability to survive in any environment, by the use of different technologies, but have such a reliance on technology, that they become hard-wired to work with technology, partially bio-mechanical in nature, and possibly not even able to survive without technological devices at all.

This is all theoretical, of course.

But even so, I would not really think of this as evolution, until the evolutionary pressures have arrived, that would cause those mutations to be directed to that point. At the moment, I see not much of that, as humans inter-breed so much on a global level, that any mutations that do arise, seem to me to get lost in the multitude, and don't really offer than much of an advantage at the moment, due to technology overcoming them.

So I WOULD expect to see that humans have a greater dissimilarity today, but only because we are engineering that far more bad mutations survive, and that would indicate that our evolution is slowing, not speeding up.

The survival of bad ones does not slow mutation. In fact, that can actually give such genes a second chance at producing a novel beneficial combination.
I can agree on that.

I think we just disagree on what we consider to be described as "evolution", whether it be mainly the mutation, or mainly the selection process. As such, I think it's more a matter of perspective.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 809
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/26/2010 8:58:51 AM
RE Msg: 1718 by Kardinal Offishall:
That said, I think there is some plausibility -- and once again, I do stress the word “some,” as opposed to "a lot" -- to the overall prognostication, which, by the way, does not originate with me, but rather another evolutionist, Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics, who (predictably) garnered some media attention when he first suggested it a few years ago.
That's because British people tend to like the idea of screening out undesirable genes, particularly in their potential kids, also in other areas, like business and the military.

But first, let’s play around with the idea a bit more. Here’s an interesting question. How long would you suppose it will be before an online dating website emerges -- be it a preexisting one or a new startup -- that offers genetic screening for its users?
I've heard that there already are Jewish dating services that will screen you for the Tay Sachs gene, and will only select potential dates where either only one or none of the parties has the gene. Whether they are online or not, I do not know. So it's already here.

Online dating sites already ask for your obesity level, smoking level, and drinking level. It's only a matter of time before larger levels of screening become routinely available. From what I've read about popular opinions on the subject, I gather that it would become incredibly popular.

FYI, ever since genetic screening became available, there was a discussion whether or not it might influence health insurance premiums and even whether or not your HMO lets you have an operation.

Wait a minute. It's already here:
UK allows insurers to use gene test for Huntington's disease

The United Kingdom has become the first country to give official approval for the use of results from genetic tests for Huntington's disease for insurance purposes.

An advisory committee to the government the Genetics and Insurance Committee last week reported that the reliability and relevance of two genetic tests for Huntington's disease are sufficient for insurance companies to use the results when assessing applications for life insurance.

The approval was given in response to an application from the professional body representing the insurance industry, the Association of British Insurers, to use information from such testing.
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7267/977.1.extract

However, one thing stands out for me, that is, that most people tend to go for the same qualities when selecting a mate at random from something like a website. So I expect that we'll see a lot more 6' men complaining that women won't talk to them, because they have put that they have a single copy of the "small gene" that COULD mean their kids would be small, and we'll see a lot more skinny women complaining that men won't have a relationship with them, because they have a copy of the "obesity gene" that COULD mean the woman becomes obese in later life. I also expect that a lot of both will be complaining that their dates lied about their genes.

I also expect that we'll see a LOT more troll threads from men and from women telling us how they have wonderful genes, and yet can't get a date.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 810
view profile
History
Evolution...of language.
Posted: 11/26/2010 3:56:06 PM
Yeah...things we hold dear, change over short times.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/read-on/2010/11.20.html
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 811
Evolution...of language.
Posted: 11/26/2010 6:07:46 PM
^^^^ proof of evolution right there....
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 812
view profile
History
Evolution.
Posted: 11/30/2010 10:34:43 AM
RE Msg: 1724 by Krebby2001:
But continuing on with the spirit of the discussion. Perhaps, future generations will have legs so weak as to only allow transit to vehicular transportation, arms so weak as to only allow the pushing of various buttons, minds so weak as to only allow utterance of certain desires like eating, drinking, or some form of entertainment.

That, of course, will be cast as "desirable."
You may have a very valid point, much more than just as a humorous suggestion.

I was told a few months ago by someone, that it's been observed in the UK, that the wings of many bird species common in the UK, has been shrinking. The reason suggested, is that now that it's common for people to put out bird-houses and food for birds, that many British bird species no longer have to fly South to find food in the winter, and so, there is less need for wings.

Another example is the rise in obesity. It's gone hand-in-hand with the rise in public and private vehicular transportation and the reality that as a result, people are walking far less than they used to.

So don't be surprised if in the next few decades, you find that much of what you predicted, starts to become more and more of a reality.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >