Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

If we want to define genetic complexity as simply the total amount of different genetics amongst a population, we can. In such a way, one can say speciation and natural selection, in a single step, decrease the genetic complexity, though this is more accurately described as simply the variation. If we want to define genetic complexity as the dependent systems of an organism, I fail to see how you can argue natural selection or speciation loses genetic complexity since any disruption of such systems via either would result in a quickly trimmed branch of the tree.

Speciation caused by genetic drift, a huge force within evolution, can result from increased genetic complexity under the variation definition by both altering and adding to current genetic code. Ring species are a terrific example of this. What you are voicing is strictly the isolation of two populations, decreasing the genetic variation within both populations in a single step. However, the populations will then diverge genetically, increasing genetic complexity.

Smaller populations have less genetic variation. Larger populations have more genetic variation. However, larger populations will probably have greater genetic drift and eventual speciation of certain groups from other certain groups within the population.

Further, natural selection in a single stage is not responsible for genetic complexity. But, natural selection is why adaptability is utterly key by developing niches or becoming invasive into previously occupied niches.

RemyDuron: chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

In terms of a set of explanations for existence and observable phenomena, religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

mightybaldking: Actually, I'll buy this. I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

I'm not a biologist, and really, I don't care enough to do more than pick up a National Geographic in the doctor's office. I'm a smart guy -- smart enough to know that I'll never be an expert, and smart enough to respect the experts so I accept what they say with a minimum of skepticism.

Comfort and Cameron however, are ANGERED by the experts. They actually get down and do their homework. They may be totally wrong, but they've studied.
...

AKA the Peanut Butter and Banana fools.
Unfortunately, there seem to be more fools willing to partake in the political process.

Fuller: religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

It's also really easy for stupid people to understand.

letrole: OniNeko: You stated what they did, then told them not to do it. Don't state what they did and tell them not to do it. That's something douchebags do

You posted a pointless rant. Don't post pointless rants. That's something that angry young men do.

I don't know where to go with this one. We already have it going in a circle, which was as intended. Oh, well.

/hate it when a good thing ends.

highendmighty: You guys are sheltered idiots. Explore the world a little bit.
Just because there is a small number of very vocal creationists in the US, doesn't mean that other countries don't have more, less-vocal, beleivers in creationism.

A few years ago National Geographic said that 1/3 of Americans believed that life on Earth was created in it's present form by God less than 10,000 years ago. The two studies don't jive.

kerpal32:

Yeah well, the same exact thing can be said about PZ Meyers. sheesh.

understanding and belief in evolutionary theory != atheism


Not really. One can argue that PZ is wrong, and many do, but one cannot argue that he does not understand the topic or that he lacks knowledge of it, you can only argue with his conclusions and logic. Ignorance is not a viable accusation in a case like that.

I want to kick that headline really really hard in the groin.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

I find that people making this sort of argument generally have no clue what they are talking about. first define what you mean by genetic complexity because we most definitely can observe instances of speciation resulting in both greater or lesser genetic complexity based on any reasonable definition of genetic complexity I can come up with.

So, what do definition are you using for genetic complexity and why do you think it has always decreased with speciation? Be as specific as you possibly can.

Day_Old_Dutchie: mightybaldking: Actually, I'll buy this. I think Rev. Comfort and Kirk Cameron have studied evolution to a higher level than I have.

I'm not a biologist, and really, I don't care enough to do more than pick up a National Geographic in the doctor's office. I'm a smart guy -- smart enough to know that I'll never be an expert, and smart enough to respect the experts so I accept what they say with a minimum of skepticism.

Comfort and Cameron however, are ANGERED by the experts. They actually get down and do their homework. They may be totally wrong, but they've studied.
...

AKA the Peanut Butter and Banana fools.
Unfortunately, there seem to be more fools willing to partake in the political process.

Exactly, fools. I would also argue that they haven't really studied anything other than talking points. Their arguments make it perfecflty clear that anything they read on evolution not written by a Creationist was either ignored or they failed to comprehend it even the tiniest bit. Their arguments are so off base and nonsensical that it would be funny if millions of people didn't agree with them.

budzilla: So you are saying that if humans have more genetic complexity than microbes then speciation MUST have created a genetic increase because that's what we have today. But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation. So, just maybe, the logical view is that speciation and natural selection cannot be responsible for our genetic complexity.

Wow. I thought you were just confused. Turns out you have an agenda. Anyway, I'm not afraid to play along.

Speciation is the result of genetic mutation, plain and simple. Mutation leads to death, improvement, or sometimes no change at all. There are many types of mutation. Some involve duplication of bases, some cause the loss of bases, some transpose bases, some change bases randomly, some chop strings in parts. Any one of these can lead to speciation over time.

Speciation doesn't cause genetic complexity. Natural selection doesn't cause genetic complexity. But, changes in genetic complexity can lead to each, or neither, or both. This is what I mean about looking at the process in reverse order.

chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Ia Cthulhu! Ia Chulhu ftaghn!

/voted for him and Lex Luthor last time around
//no, I didn't "waste" my vote

yea,

that's why Americans are always shoving the Bible down my fookin' throat.

Americans do a few things well: Greed, Beer, TV, yacking on the cell phone and saying very little, clothes, sports,commercials, did i say Greed??

Vangor: The standard response is one of kind and the acceptance of limited variation within said kind. Kind is, of course, an undefined term, and no limitation upon genetic variation outside of the medium (genetics) has thus far been observed. Generally, you'll encounter examples given in lieu of a definition for kind which is meant to make the term seem matter-of-fact and obvious, such as a dog and a cat.

My best rebuttal to this is to confuse people with rodents and non-rodents, asking if rats, mice, weasels, capybara, guinea pigs, beavers, hares, hedgehogs, and chinchillas are all one kind. Enough of those are rodents, and enough of those are confused as rodents, while none of the creatures is esoteric (capybara may be, but most people know this as the largest modern rodent). Of course, unless someone knows which are rodents and which aren't, the answer is usually yes, or eliminating a few (correctly or incorrectly). In which case, kind obviously is at least as nebulous as class or not apparent enough to excuse a lack of definition.

I also like to start quizzing them on biological diversity. As someone who works in a lab that works with Protists I may be biased but multi-cellular organisms, wonderful as they are, represent the tiniest fraction of biological diversity on the planet. Hell many of them (other then plants) don't even have large and terribly complex genomes compared to many single-celled organisms and yet most Creationists would be happy to lump all of the Protists into one "kind"and the bacteria into another, the Archea into a third if they are even aware of their existence.

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species.

This depends on what you mean by "new species".

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.

While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.

When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.

Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

Correct; humanity still are a variety of ape, descended from a common ancestor group shared with the other apes.



budzilla: In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism.

So, as a bio minor and comp sci major you are perfectly equipped to answer the question: what when you say "complexity", what complexity class are you talking about?

Also, speciation is not a phenomenon of the individual, but only of population of multiple individuals, so referring to "the organism" looks like its where your problem creeps in.

budzilla: But, all we see today are decreases in genetic complexity in speciation.

Trivial example of increase: polyploidy is common in plants. Increasing the from one copy to two copies requires a larger number of bits, because you need more bits for the encoding of the message length.

Before discussing complexity and information any further, you should first check out Linz (or comparable intro; ask a CS prof for a recommendation) for understanding complexity, and then Shannon's paper for information. I'd also suggest you check out "Natural selection for least action", (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178) if you can wade through thermodynamics; colleges often inflict a course on it on CS types for some reason.

Evolutionary Biology is simply a non-uniform random walk in N-dimensions.

People_are_Idiots: Ahem.... evolution is a theory, as we haven't studied it long enough,

No, evolution is a "theory" because every scientific model is "just a theory". There's no such thing as a scientific proof.

abb3w: Evolutionary Biology is simply a non-uniform random walk in N-dimensions.

Only as a simplified model :) And of course the landscape being explored changes as you explore it.

GeorgeBurns: For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes. And it's not even known if there is a human baseline for "attractiveness" like there is in other species.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking- but as far as "passing on genes that are inferior for survival due to sexual preference" goes, we see that in animals all the time- it's called sexual selection. It's why we have brightly colored birds, even though muted colors are better both for hiding from predators, and for stalking prey.

abb3w: letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species.

This depends on what you mean by "new species".

Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier ...consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.

letrole: Men do not come from apes.

Correct; humanity still are a variety of ape, descended from a common ancestor group shared with the other apes.



budzilla: In my experience as a bio minor and comp sci major in college evolutionists don't understand evolution themselves. For instance most believe that speciation increases the DNA information/genetic complexity and it with natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary progress. However, speciation actually limits or decreases the DNA information/genetic complexity of the organism.

So, as a bio minor and comp sci major you are perfectly equipped to answer the question: what when you say "complexity", what complexity class are you talking about?

...

AronRa? Is that you?

GeorgeBurns:
For example, a woman can make herself a more attractive mate by getting plastic surgery, and therefore reproduces something like inferior genes.

The question is, is there a theory of evolution that deals with this problem? If so, what is it?

It's part of sexual selection, that is, the selection of genes by sexual preference of the two mates. What you're asking is, is there a specific term for this "cheating" by artificially modifying a persons appearance so as to fool another person into being attracted to them. I'm not sure there is, but I don't think it's different to any other form of sexual selection.

You might think that an ugly person who goes through surgery is passing on inferior genes, but they're indicating what their values are and therefore what sort of parent they will be. They're also indicating their sexual availability and therefore likelihood of breeding. It's also known within nature for mates to be attracted based on what a suitor has constructed, rather than on properties inherent to their genes. The Bower-bird comes to mind.

Wiki article on the Bower-bird.

Essentially, a new nose or bigger breasts are the human equivalent of a well constructed bower. Something that serves no purpose except as part of a mating ritual. If any term explains the place of such things within evolution, I suppose it would be "Extended Phenotype", a term referring to those traits that are important to sexual selection, but not directly controlled by the genes.

Duh, we all evolved from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 years, what's so hard to understand about that.

"...but if you don't believe in God, then really you've got to have an explanation for this, and you just can't tell me this spun out of a gastreous ball-"

"Then all of a sudden then we were evolved from monkeys-why we still got monkeys? There's too much open here. I just believe that, and if you don't believe that, then I don't like talking to you."

"Why we still got monkeys?"

dennysgod: we all evolved from Adam and Eve over the last 6000 years

Why would we have to evolve?

The Bruce Dickinson: And the TRUTH shall set you free!

I have a pair of hand cuffs with a custom inscription: Véritás Te Líberábit.

/i have fun with them..

Fuller: RemyDuron: chaoswolf: Hosebeatings: So can we just start rounding up christians and fire up the ovens already?

Sadly, no. We have to let social evolution run its course. In time, ALL the gods will disappear into mythology.

Except for the one true god, Cthulhu, of course.

Religions are damn good at surviving though. As sets of memes go, they are some of the most persistent.

In terms of a set of explanations for existence and observable phenomena, religion still possesses the one advantage of having come first.

Also most people are religious, so most people will be raised in religious households. Genes aren't the only thing passed down in families.

Understanding is one thing, Accepting/Believing it is another.

Acid_Casualty: but if you don't believe in God

I hate Steve Harvey. I hate him so much.

I guess Barry has come the closest to answering my question. Let me re-phrase it;

As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution??? Not just by creating an artificial appearence of good health and fertility (boob jobs, etc) but by technologies like laser eye surgery (you can no longer know if you are avoiding people with poor eye health,) medicine that enables the unhealthy or unfit members to continue to contribute to the gene pool (maybe in lower apes those individuals die out without speading traits that are unproductive, or even dangerous,) etc.

And to the point about colorful birds, I'll use the example of the indigo bunting. There was just a "Living on Earth" episode tonight that addressed this point. They say that the males extreme plumage draws predetors from the well camoflaged mother and nest; once the male's traits are passed on, he is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of his offspring - genetic altrusim. Singer said that this is why a single Jay will call out when they see a predetor - to save the rest of his flock by slef sacrifice, thereby increasing the the odds of the flocks survival. A lot of bird populations show this trait, and it is easy to see how it could have evolved.

My point is that with some really boring exceptions, humans seem to be the only species that develop sophistcated technologies that really complicate the selection process. The colt .45 motto comes to mind (God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.) It's trite, but I think the point is a good one. Farming, medicine, weapons, etc - all of these things alter the environment in very strange, almost random ways, and alter it quickly enough that a population is not really going to adapt to any given artificial environment.

I think this is a big problem. If evolutionary theory (in the scientific sense) is true, then it must deal with this issue; As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

letrole: Natural selection does not produce new species. Men do not come from apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

Wow. So much fail in such a short post. This has some of the highest fail density I've ever seen, and is probably on the verge of being a fail singularity.

Let's take it bit by bit:
Natural selection does not produce new species.

This might be the closest to accurate thing you said. Indeed, this is kind of correct. Natural selection does not produce species, it determines which variants survive. Technically it is the genetic variation combined with selection for or against certain traits which produce new species.

Men do not come from apes.

Well, to be completely accurate humans ARE apes.

The only thing that natural selection does is ensure survival of the fittest.

I wish it were allowable to smack upside the head everyone who says this. No, it does not. Natural Selection is not, nor has ever been "survival of the fittest". It is "survival of the fit enough". You don't have to be the brightest, strongest, fittest, or any other -est in order to produce offspring. You only have to be good enough to get a mate. And as we have all seen numerous times, the bar is not set very high.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Letrôle is your surname. You are still either a troll or an ignoramus.

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

Probably because what you're talking about has nothing to do with evolution.

GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Only time will tell. But consider that we have doubled our lifespan in a few hundred years, so we're certainly having an effect on our species. But is anything we create really "unnatural"

This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

GeorgeBurns: As a population (maybe even a global population) haven't humans somehow halted, or artificially altered the course of huamn evolution???

You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal. This is a common misconception.

Evolution is simply "the change in allele frequencies in a population over time". That is it. No goals. No drive to be the best. Simply the measure of the change in the frequencies of the variations of genes in populations. Everything else in biology stems from these changes.

As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

Our *ability* to learn and adopt technical means to adapt to our environment is biological. That is our evolution. If something were to happen in which those with the ability to learn and pass on were wiped out and only those with learning disabilities were to survive, that would also be evolution.

Evolution has no goals, no drive for betterment. The predictive power in the theory of evolution is that we can hypothesize that "in this population with this variation, if we apply this selective pressure, then we can expect these traits to survive". This allows us to look both forward and back, and use these hypotheses to our advantage (such as in medicine when trying to design better antibiotics, or in agriculture when trying to grow or balance the right crops).

whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Hey, no Bevets yet!

GeorgeBurns: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring, but the opposite is happening. Maybe the Japanese are no better adapted to our current environment(could have fooled me,) and therefore are not reproducing as much???? I don't know - this is where the thing breaks down for me.......

That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Civilization itself, let alone any single civilization, hasn't been around for anywhere near long enough to do much in terms of human evolution, our reproduction is too slow.

The reason people have less kids is sociology and pretty simple. In undeveloped countries, lots of children die young. So it behooves people to have more kids than they actually want, because quite a few aren't gonna make it. Also, in such countries, children can often provide needed help at home, in the fields, or in the factory. As medical technology increases, and laws against child labor are put in place, children become more of a burden than a boon, and people start having less kids.

It's happened in many different areas at many different times. At first, people have lots of children for assistance, but most of them die. Then they either develop or import better medical technology, and more children survive, and there is a huge population boom. Then this number of people starts becoming a problem, people stop having so many children, and the population decreases. We are in the advanced stages of this in the US and Japan.

joethebastard: whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

eraser8: mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Fair enough. I was merely responding the the statement regarding the "course of human evolution". As far as nature is concerned, it has no set course (which was my point). However, we do seem to be unique on this planet in that we do have the ability to choose our course.

So, uhh... yeah. No real point in this post. :)

RemyDuron: joethebastard: whatshisname: This does not even address the question of why "developed" nations are tending to have fewer kids - you would think that the Japanese or Americans represent a population that has the most resources, and would use these to have the most offspring

The less likely your offspring are to survive, the more you have. Consider a frog, say that lays thousands of eggs knowing only one or two will make it.

Seriously....?

So the drop in native reproductive rates in the U.S. between the 50s and now.... is due to increased survivability?

Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Well, I should add, the 1950's baby boom was a bit different. It wasn't due to a sudden improvement in survivability or because we were still rural, it was more cultural than that. But generally the trend has been, as medical technology improves there is a huge boom in population and then the numbers steadily decrease.

RemyDuron: Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class. No, actually, there wasn't some magically enormous change in our survival-to-adulthood rates in the last fifty years. We're having less kids because more women are working, and women with careers are less likely to want/have time for kids. Common Sense 101.

mamoru: eraser8: mamoru: You seem to be under the impression that evolution has a course or a goal.

But artificial selection DOES have a course or a goal. And that's really what GeorgeBurns is asking about here.

Fair enough. I was merely responding the the statement regarding the "course of human evolution". As far as nature is concerned, it has no set course (which was my point). However, we do seem to be unique on this planet in that we do have the ability to choose our course.

So, uhh... yeah. No real point in this post. :)

Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do. Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures. Basically every interaction among living things does this. In the beginning, man didn't purposefully set out to make plants with more edible fruit and animals more willing to stand around and let us milk or slaughter them. We did it more or less by accident. Just like a predator does not intend to make its prey, over time, faster and stronger, but they do.

joethebastard: Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class.

lousy*

/my bad

linuxpyro: Hey, no Bevets yet!

It's the same tired old crap over and over every thread, hopefully he and many of the rest of the trolls (on both sides) have got tired of it and given up.

If they have, maybe we can actually discuss the articles when they come up, rather than just argue over whether evolution is even happening... That'd be spiffy.

RemyDuron: Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

No no no. That's not what I meant. My apologies for not being clear. I meant that right now, we can* use technology to artificially control and direct how our allele frequencies change. We are reaching the point where we will be able to (if we choose to) control the human genome using technology. Things like gene therapy are already in the works, and designer genetics will probably not be science fiction for much longer.

Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

Yes, this I understand very well, and was kind of my point up above when I said it is our ability to do these things which is the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures.

No doubt. My point(less point) was that we are unique in our (up and coming) ability to alter our own "evolutionary path" directly on a molecular level using technology rather than natural or even simple artificial selection.

That is what I was trying (and I guess failing) to say.

joethebastard: RemyDuron: Yep. That and the move from an agricultural to an industrial/service oriented society. Sociology 101.

Wow, you must have taken a really louse sociology class. No, actually, there wasn't some magically enormous change in our survival-to-adulthood rates in the last fifty years. We're having less kids because more women are working, and women with careers are less likely to want/have time for kids. Common Sense 101.

You're right that isn't the cause of the 1950s baby boom or subsequent decrease. I posted without thinking. It is the overall cause of population decrease and western countries.

But I think you are actually describing the symptoms of a deeper trend in society. Sure, it seems common sense to say that women have less kids because they started having careers, but why weren't women of previous generations busy with careers and not having children? Because the farther you go back, the more limited career options for women are. But why is that? And the rabbit hole goes on and on. Ultimately it comes back to the fact that when we were largely agricultural, it made more sense for a woman to have kids because more people working the land usually meant more food. As society passed from the agricultural to industrialized stages, before the passage of child labor laws and mandatory education laws, it still was pretty useful to have a bunch of kids. But when children became, essentially, a burden that required 15+ years of development and education before they could get a job, then it stops making sense to have so many kids. Also, as labor becomes less physically oriented and more mentally oriented, women become more prominent int he labor force. The baby boom in the 50s isn't explained by this, but the subsequent decline in population is.

GeorgeBurns:

There is no way to stop evolution from happening. No matter what, the genes of those animals which are more capable of reproducing will eventually dominate their population numerically.

Evolution doesn't care about anything at all. There is no morality in it or goal or focus or tendency, or anything. Intelligence, strength, beauty, height, skin color, and all other genetic traits are only valuable in how likely they make you to reproduce, and how often. There is nothing else.

However, and this is a cool however, human beings are unique in that we are meme carriers. While our bodies work in their own direction, our minds are able to carry a great number of ideas. Interestingly enough, these ideas are capable of subverting biological tendencies toward reproduction. There are ugly guys who can talk girls into bed, for instance. There are chubby chasers. There are milf-hunters. There are gold-diggers. There are people who choose to remain celibate. There are the dreaded users of birth control

It's very difficult to predict what will happen in the future, but my money is on increased promiscuity and acceptance of racial diversity. People with those traits will tend to breed a lot more, and they'll pass on their ideas to their kids.

mamoru: RemyDuron: Eh, not really. Would you say peacocks choose to have long, cumbersome tail feathers? It is due to the preference of females that they do.

No no no. That's not what I meant. My apologies for not being clear. I meant that right now, we can* use technology to artificially control and direct how our allele frequencies change. We are reaching the point where we will be able to (if we choose to) control the human genome using technology. Things like gene therapy are already in the works, and designer genetics will probably not be science fiction for much longer.

Remember, while we may have choice, our preferences are also the result of evolution.

Yes, this I understand very well, and was kind of my point up above when I said it is our ability to do these things which is the result of evolution.

We're far from the only creature to influence the evolutionary path of other creatures.

No doubt. My point(less point) was that we are unique in our (up and coming) ability to alter our own "evolutionary path" directly on a molecular level using technology rather than natural or even simple artificial selection.

That is what I was trying (and I guess failing) to say.

Ah, yeah, that's true. And really really exciting. Still, it's really just a faster and more precise method to do what we, and every other species, has been doing our entire existence.

GeorgeBurns: As a population, do humans adapt biologically to our own artificial environment - are some better suited to survive than others?

No.

Culture is completely separate from and independent of biology (beyond you know, genes that allow for speech and dexterous fingers that can write etc; but even that has been overcome by culture)

This is why Dawkins coined the term Meme, as a way of defining units of culture which are replicated and mutate within the 'space' they occupy*.

ie: Link is a meme.


Of course in some far off (or not so far off) future time, we may create people who are more genetically adapted to technology and such (say by genetically modifying a race of people who can live comfortably in .17 G

*I personally really dislike the way this concept has taken root in many peoples imaginations, with the 'mind virus' etc etc. IMO, they stretch the term far beyond its breaking point.

TheyCallThisWork: GeorgeBurns:

There is no way to stop evolution from happening. No matter what, the genes of those animals which are more capable of reproducing will eventually dominate their population numerically.

Evolution doesn't care about anything at all. There is no morality in it or goal or focus or tendency, or anything. Intelligence, strength, beauty, height, skin color, and all other genetic traits are only valuable in how likely they make you to reproduce, and how often. There is nothing else.

However, and this is a cool however, human beings are unique in that we are meme carriers. While our bodies work in their own direction, our minds are able to carry a great number of ideas. Interestingly enough, these ideas are capable of subverting biological tendencies toward reproduction. There are ugly guys who can talk girls into bed, for instance. There are chubby chasers. There are milf-hunters. There are gold-diggers. There are people who choose to remain celibate. There are the dreaded users of birth control

It's very difficult to predict what will happen in the future, but my money is on increased promiscuity and acceptance of racial diversity. People with those traits will tend to breed a lot more, and they'll pass on their ideas to their kids.

I don't think we're unique in this regard (I'm sure plenty of creatures have ended up with the proximate cause of their actions subverting the ultimate cause, ever seen a dog hump a pillow?), but we are by far the most expansive. And the idea of memes is really interesting, that there is an analogy to evolution occuring in the realm of ideas and culture advancing at a much, much greater rate than biological evolution.