NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a thought of mine:
The idea of Evolution (in simple terms) is that species continually change and that only benificial change are passed down as unbenificial or harmful changes place an animal at a disadvantage, whilst benificial changes increase the likelyhood of an animal thriving.

However, in recent times the ability to thrive has greatly increased. For instance- tens of thousands of years ago if an epileptic had a seizure, they would probally choke on their tongue and now. Now modern medicine has rendered this extremely unlikely. The same can be said for many other ailments.

The question then is, how are we as a society going to be effected by a growing increade in "bad genes" for want of a better term in the human gene pool. Are we sacrifice our higher order conscience, that is in itself a social evolution, and embark on a genocidal crusade or are we to find another way to ensure humanity can thrive for eons to come - if there is a concern at all.

I could say I give a shit, but really, I don't.

:D

When you select "Other: Explain" you are actually obliged to explain.

When you select "Other: Explain" you are actually obliged to explain.

I didn't even vote in the poll, so there.

No: because all the bad shit in our gene pool can be removed via gene therapy. The shit that remains can be watered down using medical science.

At least that's how I think it'll be in 50-100 years time.

I didn't even vote in the poll, so there.
I twasn't directed at you. Mr Spotlight. I was refering to the person WHO VOTE and DIDN'T POST, not the person who POSTED and DIDN'T VOTE...

I twasn't directed at you. Mr Spotlight. I was refering to the person WHO VOTE and DIDN'T POST, not the person who POSTED and DIDN'T VOTE...

Sheesh, it must be your time of the month.

:p

Evolution sort of depends on an organism adapting to its environment over a stretch of time. Humans don't adapt to our environment, we adapt it to us. And, for humans, it is no longer the strong surviving while the weak perish, it's the other way around much of the time. So if we're actually evolving at all anymore, we're evolving to be crapper organisms.

evolution is always taking place... whatever traits are successful now are creating more viable offspring for the ones who have them, whether these traits create long term success will only be known after the fact, but if they don't then off course they will no long be breed for. its not a process that can be cheated. it always works, just what the specific conditions and corresponding traits are change. human beings can change them unintentionally themselves in society or even intentionally, but either way evolution is still occurring.

I voted other.

Evolution is progressing as it always has, in all species on the planet - however it currently excepts humans from this. Once Technology gave us the power to intervene in our development evolution no longer functions for us. We can cause more change in 2 generations that evolution does in 20.

I voted other.

Evolution is progressing as it always has, in all species on the planet - however it currently excepts humans from this. Once Technology gave us the power to intervene in our development evolution no longer functions for us. We can cause more change in 2 generations that evolution does in 20.
but those changes are still part of what can broadly be called evolution... if anything evolution is speeding up in humans to an otherwise unheard of pace.

Well, evolution isn't slowing down, just human evolution. Needless to say, domestic animal evolution has sped up considerably in the past.

Electronic evolution is occurring at an unparallelled rate. But I believe the relative speed of biological evolution is tied in directly with environmental conditions, which can run predictably, over some periods of time - but which can also change, and sometimes change drastically before returning to a more stable, if altered, condition. I think evolution has a far greater capacity to handle rapid change as a response to adverse conditions - seismic disturbances, meteor impacts, ice ages - over as few generations as possible, if called upon to do so.

Opportunistic species move to fill niches vacated by other species unfortunately unable to adapt rapidly enough to suit a catastrophic environment. It doesn't take a million years to make a blue fish yellow.

Evolution in itself is a slow process, you need a change of about one hundred generations for something to take effect...in a human environment with a normal generation turnaround-time of 25-30 years this will mean 2500 - 3000 years...modern science and medicine doesn´t exist for such a time as you already know.

Also most of today´s ailments are not hereditary but civilization-induced...and epilepsia as in your original post was not necessarily a fatal disease, there are a lot of historical examples of "divine madness" or "the hand of god has touched him/her" but this would be a theological discussion...most of those were one or the other form of epilepsia (btw, even in a non-treated seizure you normally do not swallow your tongue, you bite it :p ). The real great killer were infectious diseases, namely tuberculosis, smallpox, measles (yes, really)...and there is no genetic association

So, sorry pal but your point is moot :confused:

The fact that Homo Sapiens became intelligent and capable of using tools is a part of the evolution and therefore so are modern medicine. And if our genes would carry more and more of the "bad things" then that could probably be fixed with genetic engineering in the future.

but those changes are still part of what can broadly be called evolution... if anything evolution is speeding up in humans to an otherwise unheard of pace.


ok i guess i was referring to natural *and biological* evolution.

The question then is, how are we as a society going to be effected by a growing increade in "bad genes" for want of a better term in the human gene pool. Are we sacrifice our higher order conscience, that is in itself a social evolution, and embark on a genocidal crusade or are we to find another way to ensure humanity can thrive for eons to come - if there is a concern at all.
I see three options:

1) Tolerate the decay of the genome and just rely on technology to treat anything bad
2) Use technology to get rid of 'bad' genes
3) Some sort of selective breeding

I prefer the idea of (3) as it doesn't make us dependent on technology, but actual implementations would be difficult, and would require a fairly large shift in our society. One option would be to discourage people from having children if they have some trait they don't want to pass on - but this would cause problems with people persecuting those who decide to have children despite having some trait (for example, poor eyesight) seen as undesirable. A second option would be for people to only want to have children with people who have some very good traits (for example, genius or physical abilities) - but this would cause problems with everyone else feeling inferior.

It's only the biological evolution that is slowing down. The behavioral evolution has accelerated far beyond the rate of previous generations. 20 years ago, saying that one was "all thumbs" meant that one was clumsy because of the difficulty of using the thumb for fine motor skills. Nowadays, because of the cell phone and text messaging, the thumb has become the most dexterous digit.

Who knows what tomorrow brings?

Oh, we're still evolving. We co-evolove with our environment - we (attempt to, at least) change our environment to suit us, while at the same time we also change ourselves to suit our environment through evolution.

But it's not an exact science, so we'll never reach an ideal equilibrium where we are perfectly suited to our environment. For one thing, if we've learned anything from the past century, it's that attempts to change our environment almost always have unforseen consequences that change the environment in ways we didn't predict, often in ways that make it less ideal for us. (Ozone depletion, anyone?) Another issue is that (as another poster pointed our) traits that weren't especially useful in a pretechnological society sometimes become highly useful (or highly detrimental) in a technological society. We haven't been technological nearly long enough for our evolution to catch up with changing technology.

Also, sometimes traits that used to be a definite advantage in our pre-tech days may become harmful now. A few weeks ago, in the thread on ADD, I pointed out that what is now known as "Attention Deficit Disorder" may actually have been an evolutionary advantage in our hunter-gatherer days, but is now (as the name implies) seen as a problem.

The rules for evolution haven't changed, and we haven't exempted ourselves from them. Adapt or die. Evolve or go extinct.

:p

Well, if Evolution fails there's one final option: Human Instrumentality :D

we evolved to such an extent that we no longer needed to adapt to our surroundings, we adapt the surroundings to suit us suing our technology

I doubt evolution is 'slowing down'. In fact, I doubt evolution has a set speed, it's just adapting to your environment, and really, if an environment is stable for long periods of time, not a lot of evolution on a large scale is going to be happening. The Earth has had a pretty stable environment for a while now, especially in the manner humans live nowadays. Though even with that, I would say humans are still evolving, just with small changes that happen over such a long period of time that it can't be noticed by within a few generations. Which is generally the way evolution works, slowly.

And given that we've only been thinking about evolution for under two centuries, and observing human DNA for less than that, I would say it'd be awhile before we could actually notice any evolution in humans, unless something drastic happens.

Considering that I nearly died when I was born, considering I have some genetic mental problems I doubt that I plan on having kids so I won't hurt natural Selection. Unless Gene therapy is worked out.

No: because all the bad shit in our gene pool can be removed via gene therapy. The shit that remains can be watered down using medical science.

At least that's how I think it'll be in 50-100 years time.
Isn't gene therapy one of those things opposed by the morality police for being amoral?

Sheesh, it must be your time of the month.

:p

Har-har, Rotovia is on his rags!

we evolved to such an extent that we no longer needed to adapt to our surroundings, we adapt the surroundings to suit us suing our technology
All animals effect (and so adapt) the environment of their descendants. That we adapt the environment isnt particularly unique, but rather a necessary consequence of existing in an environment.

As to whether or not our adaptions are universally of a kind that suits us, that is be no means proven.

This is just a thought of mine:
The idea of Evolution (in simple terms) is that species continually change and that only beneficial changes are passed down as unbeneficial or harmful changes place an animal at a disadvantage, whilst beneficial changes increase the likelihood of an animal thriving.

However, in recent times the ability to thrive has greatly increased. For instance: tens of thousands of years ago if an epileptic had a seizure, they would probally choke on their tongue. And now modern medicine has rendered this extremely unlikely. The same can be said for many other ailments.

The question then is, how are we as a society going to be affected by a growing increase in "bad genes" for want of a better term in the human gene pool? Are we to sacrifice our higher order conscience, that is in itself a social evolution, and embark on a genocidal crusade or are we to find another way to ensure humanity can thrive for eons to come - if there is a concern at all.

How would you demonstrate what constitute 'bad genes'? If you look at the Nazi racial policy, they thought blue eyes and blond hair were 'good' genes, but now we know that both are just random attributes.

*Starts humming Pearl Jam's Do the Evolution*

The thrust of evolution will change, but not the effect. For example, 100 years ago, people died from all kinds of diseases which are now both cureable and preventable. However, at the same time, no one died from having a Coke machine tip over on them as they shook it to get a Coke out. Evolution now will favor the intelligent whereas before it tended to favor the strong. Give it a million years and we'll all look like the aliens on the original Star Trek pilot - The Cage.

The Darwin Awards are more prophetic than we know - weeding out the stupid only helps our gene pool.

Evolution sort of depends on an organism adapting to its environment over a stretch of time. Humans don't adapt to our environment, we adapt it to us. And, for humans, it is no longer the strong surviving while the weak perish, it's the other way around much of the time. So if we're actually evolving at all anymore, we're evolving to be crapper organisms.
I agree, but I think that's a good thing. We have become too advanced in our cushy society. At this rate, we will destroy the planet! But then, of course, if we do, then we will be able, at that time, to just go to another one. Then we'll destroy that. Deevolution is necessary for the greater good!

Genetic engineering! We can just fix the bad genes cutting off natural selection and making everyone have good genetic traits. This is NOT designer babies. We just get rid of genes that cause cancer adn what not.

(other)
Evolution doesn't continuously go at the same pace.
We're just waiting for the next mass extinction, and then there'll be a flurry of new life and speciatiation.
Unless humanity survives and kills it all first.

I agree, but I think that's a good thing. We have become too advanced in our cushy society. At this rate, we will destroy the planet! But then, of course, if we do, then we will be able, at that time, to just go to another one. Then we'll destroy that. Deevolution is necessary for the greater good!

Devolution doesn't happen. Even if humans evolved back into proto-human-like beings, it would still be evolution.

Devolution doesn't happen.
Explain the Osmond family, then.

Explain the Osmond family, then.

I assume that was meant to be funny, but... totally over my head, that one.

Note to self:

Stick with pooh-pooh jokes.

*sighs for, what? The third time today?*

:headbang:

I see three options:

1) Tolerate the decay of the genome and just rely on technology to treat anything bad
2) Use technology to get rid of 'bad' genes
3) Some sort of selective breeding

I prefer the idea of (3) as it doesn't make us dependent on technology, but actual implementations would be difficult, and would require a fairly large shift in our society. One option would be to discourage people from having children if they have some trait they don't want to pass on - but this would cause problems with people persecuting those who decide to have children despite having some trait (for example, poor eyesight) seen as undesirable. A second option would be for people to only want to have children with people who have some very good traits (for example, genius or physical abilities) - but this would cause problems with everyone else feeling inferior.If some segment of humanity attempted to selectively breed them selves so that they didn’t deed technological intervention they would be doing themselves a great disservice. Humanity has evolved intelligence and tool use because it is much more efficient then changing the body: Why run like a cheetah when you can build a car, why grow eyes like an eagle when you can use binoculars.

Personally I’m all for people cleaning up their genes so that their children don’t have the same level of disorders... but if you ignore technology I think you’d find your homo superior supermen vastly inferior to the homo cyberiad transhumanists.

The Liberated Ones'] but if you ignore technology I think you’d find your homo superior supermen vastly inferior to the homo cyberiad transhumanists.But wouldn't the combination be better yet?

Note to self:

Stick with pooh-pooh jokes.

*sighs for, what? The third time today?*

:headbang:

I have very limited knowledge of pop culture from any age, present or past, which I'm assuming what you were making reference is/was a part of. As a consequence, I tend not to get jokes involving it.

Buuuut... that's off-topic. I stand by that devolution can't happen, things just change, whether or not people consider it for better or for worse.

Buuuut... that's off-topic. I stand by that devolution can't happen, things just change, whether or not people consider it for better or for worse.Actually, devolutiuon can happen just as well as evolution. Both are simply change, plus a judgement of whether it's for the worse or the better respectively.

I think human evolution will speed up by the end of the 29th century we probly won't be able to recognise are species

we will also become separate species as we begin to colonise the cosmos

good link on this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/

it appears if we do nothing are unihuman species will be killed by dieses

it appears if we do nothing are unihuman species will be killed by diesesIt's doubtfull one disease would finish off our whole species.
hmm.. Maybe if we coupled it with a global natural disaster.

It's doubtfull one disease would finish off our whole species.
hmm.. Maybe if we coupled it with a global natural disaster.

but if all are genes are the same one clever disease is bound to find a way round this (and will due to natural selection of our body’s killing everything else)

but if all are genes are the same one clever disease is bound to find a way round this (and will due to natural selection of our body’s killing everything else)Yes, _if_, but our genes will never all be the same. Unless everyone is a clone.
Frankly, I'd be more worried about suicide then. I wouldn't want to live in a world populated solely by copies of me :p

Chances are our genome is getting more diverse at the moment, not less, since there is no selection against mutations.

Linear motion is a bad metaphor for evolution. There is no "direction" to evolution - it is just the process by which the fittest survives. Each human generation is as much of an evolution as the last, and although one may consider them "weaker", they are fit for the world they live in, with all it's modern conveniences.

Yes, _if_, but our genes will never all be the same. Unless everyone is a clone.
Frankly, I'd be more worried about suicide then. I wouldn't want to live in a world populated solely by copies of me :p

Chances are our genome is getting more diverse at the moment, not less, since there is no selection against mutations.

yes but once isolated populations are merging if a small population are found living on an island in the pacific that are resistant to plague eventually this trait will be watered down and disappear

yes but once isolated populations are merging if a small population are found living on an island in the pacific that are resistant to plague eventually this trait will be watered down and disappearIt won't disappear, because there is no disadvantage to it.

Besides which, any disease that kills al it's hosts, is also dooming itself. It has evolution against it. Once the population thins out, it can no longer spread, because it has killed its host before it can infect others.
And I'm sure the few scienteists at the south pole would be isolated enough to stay safe.

Many people think successful human traits will continue to be passed down and that humans will continue to evolve, and this is true, however the question how do you define success, and in evolutionary terms, it's defined by how many children and grandchildren you have. Over the course of civilization we've probably goten much more attractive, and our chances of birth problems have gone down, but other than that there haven't been all that many things that have forced us to become stronger, more intelligent, or any other traits we might value.

I think this problem will be remedied by genetic manipulation before birth, people will want strong, attractive children with an IQ of 140 and they will get them, as long as politicians don't prevent it from happening.

SNIP

I think your forgetting the whole thread about the slowing down evolution plague isn't too common so it will die out because the ratio of trait passing on the male and female side is 50-50 now if they breed again the chances of getting the trait is 25-75 as you can see by the 6th generation the trait will be gone

and I don't think a few people surviving each time will be good because are luck will run out eventually (not to mention the fact that we won't have the time to keep having these apocalyptic diseases)

I think your forgetting the whole thread about the slowing down evolution plague isn't too common so it will die out because the ratio of trait passing on the male and female side is 50-50 now if they breed again the chances of getting the trait is 25-75 as you can see by the 6th generation the trait will be goneI disagree. It depends among other things on how many children they get. Sure, if each successive generation has just one child, chances are getting grim. Of cours ethen there's just be a handfull of people anyway in 20 generations.
On average, the percentage in the genepool will stay the same for any trait, if there is no selection for or against. That's easy enough to calculate.

and I don't think a few people surviving each time will be good because are luck will run out eventually (not to mention the fact that we won't have the time to keep having these apocalyptic diseases)Chances are there won't be many apocalyptic diseases following eachother. And humans f*ck like bunnies to make up population loss. We've had exponential growth in population for as far as we can look back in history.

snip

1) its still a 50-50 trait someone who doesn’t have it just has a dormant plague gene but once that dormant gene gets beyond about the 8th generation it disappears

2) its not about how fast we can re-populate the survivors will still have the same problem of there genes having the same dieses fighting power so once lets say smallpox spreads again we may not be so lucky as to have a few isolated groups not being infected

But wouldn't the combination be better yet?Sure. :)

But I'd rather get the tech upgrade now and leave the genetic upgrades for the next generation. In the short term it’s a lot easier to upgrade someone with chemicals, computers and surgery then it is to change their genes. (But having both is certainly a benefit).


Hmm, but wait, I just had another idea.

Just say I’m some kind of cyborg in the future and I decide to have children, is it okay for me to customise their genome so they can be more easily modified to fit my definition of superior?

For example there could theoretically be genetic traits which are a severe disadvantage on their own, but are an asset when combined with certain cyberware. But if I do this to my potential child, I have locked them into a cyborg lifestyle.

(But this is all my transhumanist prejudice coming through. Why would you want to be a really fit and healthy human here on Earth, when you could be a space faring machine-god with the whole universe as your playground.)

Now is the time for SOCIAL engeneering ... and excersizing controll of our genetic destiny

So, sorry pal but your point is moot :confused:
I didn't make a point, I asked a question. ;)

Ps. You so remind me of Raysia. RIP the greatest little Mormon to ever sell me WMDs...

voted other.

evolution is us adapting to our surroundings. Now we adapt our surroundings to us, so evolution is moot

Now is the time for SOCIAL engeneering ... and excersizing controll of our genetic destiny
And of course, social engineering can go completely wrong and screw everyone over...the same goes for the latter part, concerning GE

1) its still a 50-50 trait someone who doesn’t have it just has a dormant plague gene but once that dormant gene gets beyond about the 8th generation it disappearsWhat makes you think that? Because I'm quite sure it's not true. Genes don't simply magically disappear. Not by the 6th, and not by the 8th generation.
Relative gene frequencies stay the same generation to generation if there's no selection against them. Run a computer simulation if you don't believe it.

2) its not about how fast we can re-populate the survivors will still have the same problem of there genes having the same dieses fighting power so once lets say smallpox spreads again we may not be so lucky as to have a few isolated groups not being infectedExcept diseases need high population densities to spread pandemically, and those were just wiped out with the last one. It simply won't work. Every highly deadly disease is it's own worse enemy, because it destroys its means to spread. A 'good' disease doesn't kill it's host.
But if you don't believe me, ask someone at WHO or a university with a good epedemiologist on staff.

I think a more interesting question is: now that we're starting to hijack evolution, will we actually do better?

I mean, with the medical advances lurking around the corner of our very near future, we will most definitly start to fuck with the main principles in evolution in a big way. Cybernetically enhanced humans, genetically enhanced humans... On a 10-50k year timespan, how will that alter evolution? Will we become so distranced from the basic principles that it'll (almost) stop governing our destiny as a species?

Will we become so distranced from the basic principles that it'll (almost) stop governing our destiny as a species?
These kids today with their Helix Parlours and their robot bodyguards and their glanded drugs. Oh how I miss the nineties.

But no, I don't think it'll have an undue impact on the species as a whole. In fact, were the society that supported such initiatives to be dealt a body blow, those who have chosen to distance themselves from the basic genome might find themselves at a disadvantage.

The evolution of humans was not a liner event it was largely random, likewise we can't rule which evolutionary traits should or should not be allowed to emerge in some sort of liner interpretation of evolution. These things happen randomly and has little to do with the preservation of people with recessive diseases.

Humans are just becoming highly specialised. Eventually we won't be able to survive without our technology, just like dinosaurs couldn't survive when the meteor crashed.

We'll probably evolve to become better users of our technology, and any disadvantages like asthma, diabetes or other such problems will be a common part of life, since our technology can deal with them (meaning they're not a disadvantage anymore).

We'll be fine like that, until something bad happens, and our technology becomes useless. Then we all die, woot.

We'll probably evolve to become better users of our technology, and any disadvantages like asthma, diabetes or other such problems will be a common part of life, since our technology can deal with them (meaning they're not a disadvantage anymore).They might not be a real disadvantage, but I think they'll remain an inconvenience, meaning people would still rather be rid of it.
If it's possible to root out such diseases with gene therapy, I'm sure it will happen eventually.

Humans are just becoming highly specialised. Eventually we won't be able to survive without our technology, just like dinosaurs couldn't survive when the meteor crashed.

We'll probably evolve to become better users of our technology, and any disadvantages like asthma, diabetes or other such problems will be a common part of life, since our technology can deal with them (meaning they're not a disadvantage anymore).

We'll be fine like that, until something bad happens, and our technology becomes useless. Then we all die, woot.
That's pretty much what I was talking about. But I'd like to take that a bit further. For example, most people who speculate about these things for a living, agree that humanity of the future will probably rely more & more increasingly on both bioengineering and integration of technology into our bodies.

We are already at the point where a lot of us would benefit tremendously from having bodies designed for less physical activity. With evolution one can speculate that we'll slowly adapt to this, but with our level of technological progress it's almost inconcievable that evolution will take that course, simply because we'll adapt our bodies ourselves.
And that brings me neatly to what I was really thinking about: our brains.
Right now, we have exactly the kind of brain we need. We've reached where we can adapt our reality to our needs & desires, so there's no need for any type of development. In fact, it's quite likely that we'd resist any interferrence from evolution regarding our brains.

I can't help but wonder whether that's a good thing or not...?

Actually, devolutiuon can happen just as well as evolution. Both are simply change, plus a judgement of whether it's for the worse or the better respectively.
In evolution no phenomena known as devolution exists. Evolved traits are either more or less adaptive to particular thing or things in their (possible) environments.

however the question how do you define success, and in evolutionary terms, it's defined by how many children and grandchildren you have.
I would suggest longevity defined success at the species level. Fercundity is only one aspect of that.

Relative gene frequencies stay the same generation to generation if there's no selection against them. Run a computer simulation if you don't believe it.
What works on computer, does not necessarily occur 'out-there'.

I think a more interesting question is: now that we're starting to hijack evolution, will we actually do better?
We have not hijacked or even 'begun' to hijack evolution.

In evolution no phenomena known as devolution exists. Evolved traits are either more or less adaptive to particular thing or things in their (possible) environments.Yes, obviously devolution isn't known in evolution, as it's an opposite..
But not all changes are ultimately for the better. It's a judgement. It's a matter of how it's called, not what it is.
Evolution implies change for the better, but better is subjective term. Certainly, you can define 'better' in terms of longevity or whatnot. But you could likewise be of the opinion that that's actually worse.
Perhaps getting stupider would prove beneficial to survival of the human species, but most people wouldn't call it an improvement.
And in fact change is often a mixed deal. Take cows for example. They're flourishing as a species thanks to us. But at the same time they've develloped so many complications they need us to survive, even just to give birth. That aspect is hardly an improvement.

What works on computer, does not necessarily occur 'out-there'. True, but at least it's better than just some handwaving. And considering we're dealing with statistical underpinnings of distribution of genes, a computer model isn't a bad choice to examine it.

Yes, obviously devolution isn't known in evolution, as it's an opposite..
They are not opposites because (so far as the scientific theory) evolution (is concerned) excludes devolution - ie it renders it a meaningly term.

But not all changes are ultimately for the better. It's a judgement. It's a matter of how it's called, not what it is.
'Better' unqualified is not something at exists in science. In terms of evolution a thing is more or less adapted to a thing or a confluence of things.

Evolution implies change for the better, but better is subjective term.
No evolution (as a modern scientific theory) does not imply change for the better.

Certainly, you can define 'better' in terms of longevity or whatnot. But you could likewise be of the opinion that that's actually worse.
If you are going to subjectively add a notion of 'success' or 'failure', what other possible 'success-demonstration' is there that supercedes species survival, at the species level?

Perhaps getting stupider would prove beneficial to survival of the human species, but most people wouldn't call it an improvement.
What people think does not necessarily change evolution, nor does every subjective thing people think have a place in the theory of evolution.

And in fact change is often a mixed deal. Take cows for example. They're flourishing as a species thanks to us. But at the same time they've develloped so many complications they need us to survive, even just to give birth. That aspect is hardly an improvement.
Improvement isnt relevent. Evolution is changes in the occurence rates of alleles within a 'population' over a period of time (ie intergenerationally).

True, but at least it's better than just some handwaving. And considering we're dealing with statistical underpinnings of distribution of genes, a computer model isn't a bad choice to examine it.
Good or bad choice, if it arrives at the conclusion that
"Relative gene frequencies stay the same generation to generation if there's no selection against them",
then it must be true that either the computer model yeilds a wrong result or that relative gene frequencies stay the same in the absence of a 'selector'.

So far as I can tell 'genetic drift' is both, 'tautologically-non selective' change, in the frequency of alleles within a given 'population' over a period of time, and an actual phenomenon.

That being the case, the computer model you described produced an erroneous conclusion.

Given that traits are passed on when we reproduce, and most people live well past that age now, we have reached the point that only traits that make our children more attractive are important.
What I mean is traits that enable us to provide a better environment that ensures that more of our children live to reproduce are now traits that are selected...

Besides, by its very deifinition, you should not see natural selection at work since it takes generations to accomplish changes...

They are not opposites because (so far as the scientific theory) evolution (is concerned) excludes devolution - ie it renders it a meaningly term.unfortunately 'evolution' is not only used as a scientific term.
So I'll concede those points were it's limited to that.

So far as I can tell 'genetic drift' is both, 'tautologically-non selective' change, in the frequency of alleles within a given 'population' over a period of time, and an actual phenomenon.Yes, genetic drift does occur, but it doesn't work to push out low frequency alleles. It will make them more frequent just as often as it will make them less frequent. Which on average means it stays the same. It's a bit of a random walk. And certainly not doom in 8 generations.
btw, what do you mean by "tautologically-non selective" (I'd try google, but it's never heard of it)

That being the case, the computer model you described produced an erroneous conclusion.Just because it's not the result you want?

unfortunately 'evolution' is not only used as a scientific term.
So I'll concede those points were it's limited to that.
For instance in a discussion about human evolution?

Yes, genetic drift does occur, but it doesn't work to push out low frequency alleles. It will make them more frequent just as often as it will make them less frequent. Which on average means it stays the same. It's a bit of a random walk. And certainly not doom in 8 generations.
Evolution is change in the frequency of the occurance of alleles within a given 'population' over a period of time. That a particular gene increase frequency is not required for evolution to have occured. I dont know what 'doom in 8 generations' has got to do with it.:confused:

btw, what do you mean by "tautologically-non selective" (I'd try google, but it's never heard of it)
I meant that it was 'non-selective', tautologically (I put the '-' in between tautologically and non to prevent the inference that tautology was referring to other referents such as 'an actual phenomenon').

Just because it's not the result you want?
No, why would I 'want' a particular result?
I believe that it arrives at an erroneous conlusion (if it arrives at the conlusion "Relative gene frequencies stay the same generation to generation if there's no selection against them"), because an argument I believe is sound, concludes as much.

We don't know what humanity will need in order to survive in the future, so I say nature should be left to take it's course. If nature is too much of a pansy to kill us with our technology, well that just shows we're a strong species. I'm sure some horrible plague will sweep the planet one day and only people with some weird immunity will live. No need for genocide, nature will do it for us!

We don't know what humanity will need in order to survive in the future, so I say nature should be left to take it's course.I'd rather have my bets covered. More genetic diversity would probably be a good idea, and I'm sure there must be some mods that have short term benefits as well.
A few off-world colonies wouldn't hurt survival of the species either.

It certainly is, evolution started to slow down the moment society kicked in. People with crippling (inherited) diseases who couldn't survive in the wild are passing there traits on because there are people who can care for them. So we are disrupting the "survival of the fittest", and the traits that remain in the gene pool that would have naturaly been eradicated will eventualy be our downfall. As apauling as it is we are weakening ourselves by supporting those people.
I am not saying those people should be left to die, because that would be even worse. Take stevin hawking for example, life threatening disabilities, but he can offer alot of things back to society in exchange for people helping him live (like his intelligence). Maybe back then we didn't need that degree of intelligence but today thats just as valuble of comodity as being dexterous with knives or a spear in the wild.

It certainly is, evolution started to slow down the moment society kicked in.
Which was when exactly (according to your suggested theory)?

People with crippling (inherited) diseases who couldn't survive in the wild are passing there traits on because there are people who can care for them.
I take it the implication you are referring to (as significant) is that certain genes get passed on that otherwise wouldnt, thus changing the 'make up' of the gene-pool? If that is the case then it is not a slow down of evolution at all.

So we are disrupting the "survival of the fittest",
Survival of the fittest is largely misunderstood. It's not entirely true (for instance the 'fittest might not reproduce due to some aspect not related to their fitness'), however in the sense that the 'less than fit' do not ever survive, it does have some truth to it. The fact is 'fittest' is defined by 'survival'. If an organism is 'fit enough' to survive, then it qualifies as 'fittest', so far as the implications of 'survival of the fittest' are concerned.

and the traits that remain in the gene pool that would have naturaly been eradicated will eventualy be our downfall.
I dont percieve that such traits are supernaturally kept in the gene pool, and so necessarily believe that any traits that have not been eradicated, are traits that nature would not necessarily (and indeed has not) remove(d).

As apauling as it is we are weakening ourselves by supporting those people.
I dont percieve that is necessarily so, and if it were, I dont believe it is significant relevent to other factors.

Evolution is change in the frequency of the occurance of alleles within a given 'population' over a period of time. That a particular gene increase frequency is not required for evolution to have occured. I dont know what 'doom in 8 generations' has got to do with it.:confused:


Actually, Evolution just means "change".

Actually, Evolution just means "change".
Not in the context of the theory of evolution.

In fact even in day to day usage, I dont think most people would consider that my moving from the kitchen to the bathroom was an instance of evolution, but it is an instance of change.

Evolution is change in the frequency of the occurance of alleles within a given 'population' over a period of time. That a particular gene increase frequency is not required for evolution to have occured. I dont know what 'doom in 8 generations' has got to do with it.:confused: Yes, confusion is what you get when you jump in a conversation which you weren't following..
The point was that someone said that infrequent genes, that might exist some on isolated island, and which might be beneficial to survival of a hypothetical pandemic plague, would completely disappear in 8 generations if that isolation were to be broken.
I argued against that, since there is no selection against such a trait. It'll drift left a bit, and right a bit, and on average stay were it is.

No, why would I 'want' a particular result?Well, many people don't want to accept results that don't fit their world view, or more specifically their theories.
But if that's not the case, then I apologize for implying it might be.

I believe that it arrives at an erroneous conlusion (if it arrives at the conlusion "Relative gene frequencies stay the same generation to generation if there's no selection against them"), because an argument I believe is sound, concludes as much.I put it forward a little inprecise. But it's approximately true.
It's true in the same sense that for a man and a woman with one dominant allele (for a certain trait) between them, half their children will have that trait and the other half doesn't. On average it's the case, but they might have an odd number of children, or none at all. Or by chance all their children get the dominant allele. Or all don't. The deviation from the mean is what causes genetic drift.

Yes, confusion is what you get when you jump in a conversation which you weren't following..
I'll keep that in mind as a possible cause of confusion should I find I am confused after jumping into a conversation that I have not been following.

The point was that someone said that infrequent genes, that might exist some on isolated island, and which might be beneficial to survival of a hypothetical pandemic plague, would completely disappear in 8 generations if that isolation were to be broken.
They might or might not. Whether or not you conclusion (that they would not disappear) is correct, several of the claims you made (the one's I replied to) were not in my opinion correct.

I argued against that, since there is no selection against such a trait. It'll drift left a bit, and right a bit, and on average stay were it is.
As it happens, whether or not the trait will 'disappear' would be determined by a range of variables. It is possible that it would 'disappear'.

Well, many people don't want to accept results that don't fit their world view, or more specifically their theories.
But if that's not the case, then I apologize for implying it might be.
I'd rather be right than look right.

I put it forward a little inprecise. But it's approximately true.
I dont believe that to be the case. So far as I can tell it just is not true that in the absence of selection for or against a particular trait, that the trait will necessarily not ever come to occur more or less frequently.

It's true in the same sense that for a man and a woman with one dominant allele (for a certain trait) between them, half their children will have that trait and the other half doesn't. On average it's the case, but they might have an odd number of children, or none at all. Or by chance all their children get the dominant allele. Or all don't. The deviation from the mean is what causes genetic drift.
Aside from 'chance' deviation from a statistical mean, there is are other factors. For instance the trait although not directly selected for or against may have some relation to some other trait subject to selection that causes a flow on effect. Alternatively an earthquake might occur and it just so happnens that the mortality experianced within a population occurs in a pattern that dramatically changes the frequency of allele occurence. Alternatively 'social' factors that are not related to adaptive selection might be a significant factor.

I dont believe that to be the case. So far as I can tell it just is not true that in the absence of selection for or against a particular trait, that the trait will necessarily not ever come to occur more or less frequently.Necessity is always a strong claim; I think it's highly improbably it would just disappear, let alone in 8 generations as claimed.

Aside from 'chance' deviation from a statistical mean, there is are other factors. For instance the trait although not directly selected for or against may have some relation to some other trait subject to selection that causes a flow on effect.I'd put indirect selection under selection. Besides the tenet seems to be there isn't any selection at all for humans anymore. (Which is debatable)

Alternatively an earthquake might occur and it just so happens that the mortality experienced within a population occurs in a pattern that dramatically changes the frequency of allele occurence.That's a rather local event, it won't significantly chance things on a global scale. If the trait were still only a geographically isolated one, then sure. But the point was it wasn't.

Alternatively 'social' factors that are not related to adaptive selection might be a significant factor.That's still selection. Culture and society is as much nature as anything imo. (And it's not like we're the only animals to have it)