Evolution and Humanity

[jverne]

No, I said it does apply. Any selection pressure we put on ourselves is the same as any other species with higher brain functions has. I'll make up an example:

Monkeys in the wild might learn that cleaning a wound (let's call this a "skill") keeps it from getting infected and thus keeps monkeys from dying as often - though of course, they would understand it in simpler terms - and thus they start proliferating slightly more (this would be the "skill selection pressure"). But then a new bacteria comes along that spreads and breeds far too quickly for wound cleaning to have any effect. This negates the skill that the monkeys have learned, and the resultant skill selection pressure. The monkeys who learned to clean wounds begin dying just as often as before.

You can apply this to humans as such:

We discovered penicillin about 80 years ago, which allowed us to treat and cure many infectious diseases (the "skill"). Suddenly, we are all but immune to a slew of bacteria that used to maim and kill us, and we proliferate (the "skill selection pressure"). But now bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to it, and we are having to turn to newer, more specific drugs that are themselves becoming increasingly less effective. It's safe to assume that in the near future we may, for a time, have no way to fight off newer strains of bacteria and viruses that are resistant to our drugs. And accordingly, many humans, especially the elderly, will succumb to simple bacterial infections once again. The bacteria evolve, and negate our skill selection pressure.

I made up some terms, but there you go. Just because we have a word to differentiate things that are and are not created by us (i.e. natural and artificial), does not mean that they exist in two separate spheres of influence.

well yes ok...but we're just interpreting it differently. it doesn't really matter.
i understand what are you saying, but you didn't make a proper answer to the question that humans strive for certain goals. but that again even this property can be somehow squeezed in the classical theory. therefore this debate is pointless.

Bad gene is always getting marginalised . Although there is news saying that some brain dysfunctional guys got married and have children, the reproductive rate of bad-gene processing people is much lower than normal people. This is already a natural selection. It doesn't matter whether people with downs syndrome have a spouse. The fact is that normal man far out-reproduce the abnormal ones. The abnormal genes are marginalised. Therefore, they won't destroy our species. Perhaps some genetic disease, such as thalassemia is preserved. It means only the nature selection is not as vigorous, as relentless as before, but it doesn't rule out the whole selection process. We are now a fish in a hillside lake, not in the cruel sea.

Intelligent people have a better chance to reproduce since people adore their wisdom. Stupid people have less chance to procreate as they do not have special ability and are not sociable. It is impossible to eliminate natural selection from the nature. It is what makes life living. It is our in born character.

ok i agree that bad genes are in a huge minority and no we won't destroy our species, no complaints here. but i have never even implied that.

oha and the stupid/intelligent thing...i think stiggy pretty much nailed it.

some of you are advocating eugenics ..moreso the scary kind than not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#United_States

i know that's why i don't really want to participate in this issue.

 

[bbson john]

Intelligent people flock to intelligent people, and stupid people are drawn to stupid people. It's natural, it's common, and it's apparent in almost any and every social situation. And with that said: Intelligent people are less likely to have unprotected sex, and are less likely to over-breed, while stupid people are the opposite. In addition, stupid people are more common than intelligent people. Lots and lots of stupid people are having unprotected sex and overbreeding, while intelligent people are having protected sex and not having as many kids, creates an exponential and proportionate increase in the populations of both.

Clever people does cluster with clever people. And less-clever people clusters with less-clever people. The two groups of people remain mostly separated and carry out reproduction within their own group; until human get to the point of speciation, which may take thousands of years. In fact, this is the spirit of evolution. Evolution does not take one species into another better species (It is eugenics). Evolution, contrary to popular belief, is not natural eugenics. Evolution splits one species into two. Then the two new species are being acted on by natural selection differently. The two new species adapt to the changing environment differently, with one of the two species may or may not extinct. Much like tree-finch, ground-finch and warbler-finch.

Although less-clever people tend to overbreed, they die more easily than clever people. Clever people know better how to survival. For example, they are less likely to get killed by eating crappy food. The situation is much like USA and Ethiopia. Though the birth rate of Ethiopia is very high, it is compensated by a very low life expectancy and high infant mortality. The USA has a lower birth rate, but a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality. Rich or clever people normally give themselves and their child a better environment to live in. They are smart in spotting and eliminating or avoiding potential danger. Intelligent people survive better in the environment, so less-clever people will not overrun the clever people.

most people dont admire people with high intelligence ..in fact they usually dislike them because they feel threatened. the proof in this is pretty obvious as far more people know and admire someone like ryan seacrest than someone like stephen hwking

I don't know the situation in your sociality. But in the sociality I am living in, people probably know Stephen Hawking more than Ryan Seacrest. Anyway, There is no problem with adoring Ryan Seacrest. Ryan is a successful host and producer. It takes a strong mental and social ability to be so. As a host, one needs a quick, agile mind and good memory. As a producer, one needs a great deal of creativity. People bearing "good-gene" are not limited to scientists or philosophers or people dedicating a themselves onto a few specific subjects. An artist can also bear good gene depending on his skill.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Spot on. Were at the start of the age where humans can pick and chose embryo's based on their diseased genes, and everything else that the advancement of genetic and medical science brings, it could eventually be that natural evolution ceases to be an issue to the human race as a whole.

we'll simply engineer ourselves.

This ^. It's doesn't need to be restated, verbatim.

Originally Posted by Stigmata
Intelligent people flock to intelligent people, and stupid people are drawn to stupid people. It's natural, it's common, and it's apparent in almost any and every social situation. And with that said: Intelligent people are less likely to have unprotected sex, and are less likely to over-breed, while stupid people are the opposite. In addition, stupid people are more common than intelligent people. Lots and lots of stupid people are having unprotected sex and overbreeding, while intelligent people are having protected sex and not having as many kids, creates an exponential and proportionate increase in the populations of both.

I disagree with your explanation: Only in that stupid people don't nessecarly breed stupid children.