NationStates Jolt Archive

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??
But the change to protect the sick rather then leting them be weeded out is a form of evolution in and of itself ... social evolution

For that to be true having a disease would not only have to be not as bad, but actually offer an advantage. Anyway, the loss of natural selection is made up for by artificial forms of evolution.

Your need for double punctuation could be seen as valid evidence for your argument.

So?

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??
true. i just hope medical science can keep the pace. if not, we'll revert to 'survival of the fittest' and a lot of people could die :(

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??

My summery of this post:

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!

!!!
!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BWAH??

EDIT: Forgot the question marks.

Hmm, that seems to remind me of the band As I Lay Dieing...

another point i shud of put in is that diseases are evolving too! This is probably most apparent in the recent chicken flu dilema!! The vaccine may be useless with the flu evolving to become imune to the vaccine which is supposed to stop it!

Originally posted by Lacklustre
Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??

Your argument makes little since. This is by no way making the human race weaker, but stronger by my standards.

another point i shud of put in is that diseases are evolving too! This is probably most apparent in the recent chicken flu dilema!! The vaccine may be useless with the flu evolving to become imune to the vaccine which is supposed to stop it!

Viruses don't become immune to vaccines. They just find ways of escaping your immune system.

Also, pfft! There have been pandemics in the past and sure, lots of people died, but humans still go on. Nothing new under the sun...

Evolution cannot possibly be reversed. Those most likely to survive and reproduce will always leave more like them behind.

What has changed is the definition of a strong human being. As we eliminate health issues, true strengths like intelligence and ambition become more and more accentuated in the development of the human race.

Whatever. I'm much stronger now than when I was nine.

Life expectancy and population have risen consistantly, while population may plateau, life expectancy may rise indefinitely.


You are patently incorrect.

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??

An interesting theory, I'll give you that! And it does make sense, destroying our old imunities as we replace them with synthetic ones.

Your use of exclamation points however, makes me believe you to be a sensationalist...that I don't like.

However, survival of the fittest mostly refers to animals. I consider humans to be above animals*, thus allowing us to circumvent the rules of nature. As UpwardThrust said, we're no longer bound to environmental evolution, but social. And I think it's for the better.

*Do NOT start with me about the rights of animals as I support them. I just don't consider humans to be animals anymore.

Our survival as a species is no longer tied to physical strength and resistance to disease. We are reproducing like cockroaches. Well, not quite that well. Stupid people seem to be having more children than smart folks, so we will eventually be dumber, but not to worry, from an evolutionary standpoint that seems to be working out well. Soon there will be more than ten billion humans, most of whom will be dumb as a bag of hammers. Ten billion humans is a pretty good score from an evolutionary standpoint.

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??

Yes, ironically the only ones to recognise this were the Nazis, they pracised forced sterilizations on those with genetic handicaps, this makes good scientific sense. Unfortunatly they also sterilized those people who were "weaker" according to nazi idiology thus making the gene pool smaller and probably undoing any good done by preventing those with genuine genetic disorders from reproducing.

Eugenics makes good logical sense when applied properly but when attached to a political agenda it becomes pretty sick, one need only see what happened in the years to follow in nazi germany. Because of this practical Eugenics has a bad image and is seen as a Nazi tool, but thats like saying the jet fighter is a nazi tool because they used it first.

Evolution cannot possibly be reversed. Those most likely to survive and reproduce will always leave more like them behind.

ah but evolution need not be 'reversed', we simply are not evolving any more. in the state of nature (yeah i know thats a philosophical concept, but lets use it here) we would be killed off by the diseases we encounter today and would adapt and evolve, as a species, as a result. medicine cuts this out for us and we, by not adapting as a species, in effect, become weaker. evolution is not reversed, but medical science makes it redundant. if the medicine is gone we'll pay the price for this with our lives, but we will adapt and come out stronger of course :)

But doesn't gene therapy alter the genes? (Excuse my ignorance if I am wrong) So surely they can't pass the disease on if it's genetic?

Our survival as a species is no longer tied to physical strength and resistance to disease. We are reproducing like cockroaches. Well, not quite that well. Stupid people seem to be having more children than smart folks, so we will eventually be dumber, but not to worry, from an evolutionary standpoint that seems to be working out well. Soon there will be more than ten billion humans, most of whom will be dumb as a bag of hammers. Ten billion humans is a pretty good score from an evolutionary standpoint.
Even taking into account the slowing of reproduction in large swaths of europe and north america?

ah but evolution need not be 'reversed', we simply are not evolving any more. in the state of nature (yeah i know thats a philosophical concept, but lets use it here) we would be killed off by the diseases we encounter today and would adapt and evolve, as a species, as a result. medicine cuts this out for us and we, by not adapting as a species, in effect, become weaker. evolution is not reversed, but medical science makes it redundant. if the medicine is gone we'll pay the price for this with our lives, but we will adapt and come out stronger of course :)

It cannot be halted either, as long as certain members of a species has reproductive advantages over other members of the species, evolution will continue.

It cannot be halted either, as long as certain members of a species has reproductive advantages over other members of the species, evolution will continue.
But with mind it can be changed ... there may be thoes with an advantage naturaly but make the social decision not to get pregnant ... which would be an almost concious controling of evolution rather then a blind force

Here's one for you: Sickle cell anaemia. Before medical treatments were developed, people with the anaemia and even those with the trait were likely to die. Now, people with the trait can survive for long periods of time, even if those with the full disease still have a hard time of it. What's the point, you ask? Well, if we ever get overrun by hoardes of malaria carrying mosquitoes, these people are more likely to survive. It may not seem like it, but most genetic 'disorders' actually have an underlying benefit.

It cannot be halted either, as long as certain members of a species has reproductive advantages over other members of the species, evolution will continue.
that is true, but i was referring to evolution of our immune system :)

just to check i understand you right, by "reproductive advantages over other members of the species" you mean 'qualities the opposite sex digs' - like good looks and, assumedly, intelligence. so while we may all be getting better looking and smarter as a species, our immune system is stagnating and not evolving. the big question is: how much evolution of diseases is there? (very rapid i know, but to what extent... how often do we find new diseases never encountered before that our bodies cannot cope with?)

But with mind it can be changed ... there may be thoes with an advantage naturaly but make the social decision not to get pregnant ... which would be an almost concious controling of evolution rather then a blind force

If they do not have an urge to have children they have a serious disadvantage towards reproduction.

that is true, but i was referring to evolution of our immune system :)

just to check i understand you right, by "reproductive advantages over other members of the species" you mean 'qualities the opposite sex digs' - like good looks and, assumedly, intelligence. so while we may all be getting better looking and smarter as a species, our immune system is stagnating and not evolving. the big question is: how much evolution of diseases is there? (very rapid i know, but to what extent... how often do we find new diseases never encountered before that our bodies cannot cope with?)
Ah, but your immune system can add to your good looks and athleticism. People are far more likely to be attracted to a clean-skinned, non-diseased person. Having a strong immune system will add to this in periods when sickness is more common e.g. winter, making you more attractive.

Here's one for you: Sickle cell anaemia. Before medical treatments were developed, people with the anaemia and even those with the trait were likely to die. Now, people with the trait can survive for long periods of time, even if those with the full disease still have a hard time of it. What's the point, you ask? Well, if we ever get overrun by hoardes of malaria carrying mosquitoes, these people are more likely to survive. It may not seem like it, but most genetic 'disorders' actually have an underlying benefit.
yay thats the point. take away the medicine and they will die. don't have the medicine and people genetically prone to sickle cell anaemia will be removed from the gene pool and the species evolves, arguably for the better.
now imagine many of today's diseases are similar - take the medicine away and, because we haven't adapted, millions will die. ok this is obvious, but it raises the question as to whether curing/preventin disease with medicine is the best thing to do for the species?


edit:

Ah, but your immune system can add to your good looks and athleticism. People are far more likely to be attracted to a clean-skinned, non-diseased person. Having a strong immune system will add to this in periods when sickness is more common e.g. winter, making you more attractive.
good point, well made.

If they do not have an urge to have children they have a serious disadvantage towards reproduction.
I am talking about social control of urges ... evolution in general theory only works with unaware populations that are not making concious choices ... if they are concious of the choice they are making social decisions that effect their reproductive chances without it reflecting an advantages genetic trait

(basicaly in un aware population ... good trait = more kids, bad trait = less kids now with concious desicisons even thoes with good traits may not have more kids nor the bad trait because of an artificial construct) with dosent work with general evolutionary theory

may lead to social evolution but not genetic ...
(think of psychohistory from asmov ... population has to be unaware)

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??
I don't agree, but the entire issue will soon ... very soon ... be moot. I estimate that within less than a generation, it will be normal to "optimize" your unborn child's DNA to eliminate any and all genetic abnormalities and insure each child's maximum intellect, personality and strength, within the limits of his/her genetic inheritance.

Besides, it wasn't individual evolution which made the human species the dominant one on this panet, it was "social evolution," members of clans and families evolving cooperatively.

that is true, but i was referring to evolution of our immune system :)

just to check i understand you right, by "reproductive advantages over other members of the species" you mean 'qualities the opposite sex digs' - like good looks and, assumedly, intelligence. so while we may all be getting better looking and smarter as a species, our immune system is stagnating and not evolving. the big question is: how much evolution of diseases is there? (very rapid i know, but to what extent... how often do we find new diseases never encountered before that our bodies cannot cope with?)

I don't think that attractive qualities are that important. The modern human race is so pervasive that very few will be unable to find a mate due to attractiveness. I am referring to advantages in securing the life of offspring. Since the production of offspring is not a problem for humans, insuring that they survive to reproduce is what will decide the evolution of the human race.

And our immune system will continue at a certain level unless it is proven to be a disadvantage.

Who is to say we are not still evolving? Due to our new environment, people with higher intellects often gain ground now. So those with wealth and intellect now seem to have genes that dominate. Also, we do still breed through attraction to looks, which is a sign of health. Many diseases cause deformities that the human eye can pick up subconciously.

I am talking about social control of urges ... evolution in general theory only works with unaware populations that are not making concious choices ... if they are concious of the choice they are making social decisions that effect their reproductive chances without it reflecting an advantages genetic trait

(basicaly in un aware population ... good trait = more kids, bad trait = less kids now with concious desicisons even thoes with good traits may not have more kids nor the bad trait because of an artificial construct) with dosent work with general evolutionary theory

may lead to social evolution but not genetic ...
(think of psychohistory from asmov ... population has to be unaware)

If the social choice to not reproduce becomes so pervasive as to end competition for resources, that will halt evolution.

If the social choice to not reproduce becomes so pervasive as to end competition for resources, that will halt evolution.
I think it's more likely that people would become sterile through some disease rather than mass asexuality development. Although I could be wrong, I'm just going off the fact that many of my friends are permanently horny.

If the social choice to not reproduce becomes so pervasive as to end competition for resources, that will halt evolution.
That or we expand beyond our envyroment as is which leads to whole new idea's lol

I don't think that attractive qualities are that important. The modern human race is so pervasive that very few will be unable to find a mate due to attractiveness. I am referring to advantages in securing the life of offspring. Since the production of offspring is not a problem for humans, insuring that they survive to reproduce is what will decide the evolution of the human race.

And our immune system will continue at a certain level unless it is proven to be a disadvantage.
but qualities such as attractiveness are primarily the factors that lead to mating (yes its shallow, but its true). really attractive people get laid a lot more than ugly people - undeniable. hence if each time a good looking person gets laid they have a child, the gene pool will become, in general terms, more attractive.
as for raising the child, in western society pretty much everyone can raise a child - the government or charity will pay for that if need be. thats why we have such a low infant mortality rate. that arguement only applies to 3rd world countries, imo.

of course, as Tribes said, sick people are unattractive. hence our species' immune system will continue to evolve.

Evolution - combination of natural selection and random mutations.

Just thought I needed to make that obvious. Some people suggesting you can stop evolution seem to have a point with that, as they argue that stopping natural selection stops evolution. Although there is ever-constant natural selection that you wouldn't really notice e.g. really sick people are going to die. Diseases like CF kill most before they can reproduce, although that can survive because of its recessive nature. Dominant diseases which kill people before reproduction are automatically removed from the gene pool. Is this not natural selection?

Even taking into account the slowing of reproduction in large swaths of europe and north america?
In the USA the Jerry Springer guests seem to be breeding pretty quickly. In the third world the ignorant masses seem to be reproducing at a breakneck pace too.

Who is to say we are not still evolving? Due to our new environment, people with higher intellects often gain ground now. So those with wealth and intellect now seem to have genes that dominate. Also, we do still breed through attraction to looks, which is a sign of health. Many diseases cause deformities that the human eye can pick up subconciously.
Not really. Intelligence seems to be an evolutionary dead end. Smart people tend to breed much more slowly than stupid ones. Evolution isn't about how smart or strong you are, only about how many kids you have that live long enough to have kids of their own. The dumb have genes that dominate.

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??
medical technology and developing human society have simply altered the definition of "fittest."

for example, Stephen Hawking would have been eaten by lions long since, but i don't hear anybody claiming we should have let him die in favor of "natural selecion."

In the USA the Jerry Springer guests seem to be breeding pretty quickly. In the third world the ignorant masses seem to be reproducing at a breakneck pace too.
That's mainly because of lack of contraception. Anyway, who cares about they Jery Springer guests? They all just breed with each other in backwood cabins where your sister can also be your grandma, and your dad can be your granddad too.

In the USA the Jerry Springer guests seem to be breeding pretty quickly. In the third world the ignorant masses seem to be reproducing at a breakneck pace too.
But in comparison whites in general and non thirdworld countries population growth has plumited ... enough to make a change in the world as a whole but not enough to stop the increase

Evolution - combination of natural selection and random mutations.

Just thought I needed to make that obvious. Some people suggesting you can stop evolution seem to have a point with that, as they argue that stopping natural selection stops evolution. Although there is ever-constant natural selection that you wouldn't really notice e.g. really sick people are going to die. Diseases like CF kill most before they can reproduce, although that can survive because of its recessive nature. Dominant diseases which kill people before reproduction are automatically removed from the gene pool. Is this not natural selection?
we can't stop natural selection. what we can do is change the criterion for selection; natural selection is still fully functional among humans today, we simply have changed the meaning of "fitness" as it applies to our species. fitness no longer refers to the ability to hunt down gazelle and make fire, so traits that help us do those things are no longer selected for in the way they once were.

we can't stop natural selection. what we can do is change the criterion for selection; natural selection is still fully functional among humans today, we simply have changed the meaning of "fitness" as it applies to our species. fitness no longer refers to the ability to hunt down gazelle and make fire, so traits that help us do those things are no longer selected for in the way they once were.
So....we are still evolving. Good. I like that.

I don't agree, but the entire issue will soon ... very soon ... be moot. I estimate that within less than a generation, it will be normal to "optimize" your unborn child's DNA to eliminate any and all genetic abnormalities and insure each child's maximum intellect, personality and strength, within the limits of his/her genetic inheritance.

Besides, it wasn't individual evolution which made the human species the dominant one on this panet, it was "social evolution," members of clans and families evolving cooperatively.

GATTACA anyone?

GATTACA anyone?
Heh - Interesting thought I just had. The future is going to be a combination of Gattaca, Logan's Run and 1984. Kill me now

Evolution is the ability for a creature to adopt to its environment, survival of the fittest!! for example if a disease breaks the ones with the natural gene to resist the disease will survive and the others will be wiped out leaving only the fit animal!! But for humans this is changing with the increasing medical science!! For example, someone with a disease can be cured with medicine meaning that person can live on to breed, therefore leaving the gene which is surseptical to the disease!! this means that the gene is passed onto more people, making the human race weaker!! Your views??
I blame the Democrats for their consistent pussification of politics.

I blame the Democrats for their consistent pussification of politics.
Blame women. Nearly every law that provides for welfare in the US has been passed in the relatively short time since women gained the right to vote. Women value security. They've made us a nation of weaklings. I say get them out of the voting booths and back in the kitchen!