Has Humankind outgrown natural selection?

[Z]

Just a thought that occured to me - as we develop our medicines and our sciences, keeping people alive longer and allowing people longer and healthier, active lives with genetic flaws that would have eliminated them, years ago - have we actually managed to outgrow natural selection? Is the process of evolution stalled by the ability of our species to allow individuals to survive who should have been 'selected out' of the genepool?

And what could that mean for future generations of humanity?

Or is it possible that we're also creating a weaker strain of humanity, one that will eventually lose the ability to do what we're striving to do now (cure genetic flaws, survive longer)? Will natural selection come back to haunt us in some future when our species is riddled with genetic errors and failures, unable to even understand the science of our progenitors? Will our higher brain functions force us to avoid genetic purification and improvement on some moral / social grounds, while continuing to 'benefit' from medicine and therapy, allowing people to carry defective genes forward for generations?

Or will we eschew moral and ethical considerations, and improve/purify the genetic mechanisms of our species so that we truly are beyond all other species - an evolutionary pinnacle, a perfect species, capable of thriving in any and all situations (for some reason, Marvel Comics comes to mind - one of their future history comics dealt with genetically engineered humans living throughout the Solar System on different planets relatively unprotected)?

Thoughts?

[Dog Boots]

I think one possibility is evolution seeing its first ever change of medium before long - from carbon to silicon or something. Considering the pace at which silicon based creations are advancing, it is conceivable that humans will transfer their branch of the tree of evolution to that form and perform a true paradigm shift in evolution - the first ever in billions of years.

That's one possibility.

[Z]

I've thought along similar lines, Dog Boots. The idea of robot (or cyborg) being the next evolutionary step. Or, possibly, virtual man.

[El Greco]

I had written this some time ago:

Let's take man for example. Natural selection is practically over. There's no way that a markedly different human will evolve in some dark corner of Earth. Evolution is terribly slow and has nowhere to hide anymore too. With the advance of genetic engineering the game is over. As far as other species go, we're still "allowing" it as long as it doesn't annoy us but even then, human intervention can (and does) very easily modify, destroy or undo what "natural selection" has been working on for ever. So, even if we continue to "allow" some things to go on, "natural" is now a small subset of "human" and not the other way around.

As for your question, we will eventually do all we can. No moral or ethical considerations will get in the way. There are inevitably going to be a lot of mistakes but I think that in the end we'll all be indestructible software (barring any natural disasters we won't be able to deal with).

[Jorghnassen]

Indestructible software? Isn't that a bit... dualist?

/I have yet to hear of indestructible hardware too.
//Don't buy into the carbon=>silicon evolution scenario

[Correa Neto]

What exacty would be our "natural" evolutionary path?

I would say nowdays it includes what many would consider artificial: medicine, controll of our environment, etc. We developed these techniques to improve our survival chances. Its Homo sapiens' answer to evolutionary pressures. A vaccine increases our chances of survival, its an improvment, just like eyeglasses or some prothesis. The way I see it, they are just like some "natural" feature, like hands with five digits and opposing thumbs or being a social species.

And we will use technology to improve ourselves. It is our "natural" evolutionary path. Maybe eventually we'll become something else, and no longer belong to the Homo sapiens species or even to the genus Homo. Anyone expects our species to remain unchanged and exist forever?

OK, Christians, Muslims, [add religion here]...

[El Greco]

Indestructible software? Isn't that a bit... dualist?

/I have yet to hear of indestructible hardware too.
//Don't buy into the carbon=>silicon evolution scenario

When we will fully understand how the brain works we wil be able to transfer our selves to software. And we won't mind because we will know how to experience anything, including happiness. Indestructibility will be as simple as taking a backup.

[pjh]

Anyone who says 'natural selection is finished for humans' either doesn't understand natural selection or lacks imagination.

It's very easy for us with out laptops to see only 'our' world, but large parts of the world are still chronically plagued by malaria, HIV etc.

Any form of resistance to modern contraception would be selected for.

Any genetic 'desire' for kids (in our contraception filled, 2.4 kids society) would be selected for.

[scotth]

When I look at which groups of people are having many children and which groups of people are having few or none, I can only come to the conclusion that we are actively breeding for idiots.

[Mojo]

Just a thought that occured to me - as we develop our medicines and our sciences, keeping people alive longer and allowing people longer and healthier, active lives with genetic flaws that would have eliminated them, years ago - have we actually managed to outgrow natural selection? Is the process of evolution stalled by the ability of our species to allow individuals to survive who should have been 'selected out' of the genepool? Keeping people alive longer beyond the age at which they usually have children won't have that much of an impact; it's all down to how many viable offspring are produced. If genetic problems that would have made individuals less likely to survive to adulthood are overcome, I suppose we might start to see a higher incidence of these, as they would no longer have such an effect on the individuals concerned being able to pass on their genes.

And as pjh pointed out, there will always be selective pressures.

[Mojo]

When I look at which groups of people are having many children and which groups of people are having few or none, I can only come to the conclusion that we are actively breeding for idiots.Someone has thought of this before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marching_Morons

[Piscivore]

When we will fully understand how the brain works we wil be able to transfer our selves to software.

We will be able to simulate ourselves with software. And like us, the "software" will be entirely dependant on the hardware. Same as computers are now.

[Marquis de Carabas]

We will be able to simulate ourselves with software.
What's the difference between a simulation and a reproduction (or transfer, as EG so calls)?

[Z]

Interesting discussion so far, fellas and/or ladies.

Don't think this is a post-and-run; I'm quietly absorbing your opinions, and adding their diversity to my own.

Resistance is futile...

[Upchurch]

Thoughts?
While we have made it extremely easy for the weakest of us to breed, we haven't escaped the possibility of extinction. In fact, those properties of our species that allows us to do the former has increased the possibility that the latter could happen extremely quickly. Technology is a double-edged sword.

Instead of a general progression of natural selection, we may experience all of it in a very short period of time.

[Serenity]

Interesting thread.
I can't help but wonder if our generation is the one that will miss out on life extension enhancements. Are we merely 1, 2, 3 generations away from a quality of life unheard of today? I hope it’s soon because the alternative is an obliterated awareness. What a waste of tax payer dollars. :) The aging process is the root cause of many of the symptoms modern medicine now treats. I wonder what percentage of medical expenditures goes toward maintaining the consequences of this cellular breakdown. I believe this reality is ever so slowly seeping into the forefront of our consciousness.

It feels as if we’re reaching a critical stage of the survival game. The internet and globalized market--with all its sophistication--is placing into-the-hands-of-many a level of knowledge and technology that if misused could be used to destroy or seriously put into jeopardy, our evolutionary destiny!

[Z]

Serenity, what do you see or imagine our evolutionary destiny to be?

My understanding, of course, is that it is generally the destiny of every species to grow extinct...

[Serenity]

Serenity, what do you see or imagine our evolutionary destiny to be?

My understanding, of course, is that it is generally the destiny of every species to grow extinct...
I'm certainly not qualified in any way to answer this question, and if I manage some semblance of a coherent thought on this topic I'll consider myself lucky.

You’re right the destiny or life cycle of every species has been to grow extinct, but I hope that pattern ends with us... probably not I fear. Perhaps it will require a few more tries for this planet to spawn a more intelligent creature that crawls and stays out of the womb (planet) in time to ward off dying or withering within its sphere. Evolutionary destiny for creatures of our adaptive, growing skills, is one that is self-imposed … thwarting extinction forced on lesser intelligent species, ill-equipped to adapt to a changing environment. Since the dawn of life on Earth our species has become the first to comprehend its place and workings of the universe sufficient enough to contemplate taking over nature's evolutionary reigns and begin mapping out writing its evolutionary destiny. It can happen, if we yearn for it… dream it.

I can only imagine we will someday shed our biological origins for a safer vessel or format more conducive to space travel. Bodies are such a liability and prone to injury with no backup, as was mentioned by others. Our strength seems to be our ability to network our way to success. Will our consciousness consist of a bunch of 1’s and 0’s circulating in some mirrored server up in the sky? Maybe...maybe not… No one really knows and you’re lucky to get in the ballpark with any sort of prediction. Trending can only get you so far and rarely accounts for all the variables. But what I do know is that we have the capacity to manufacture our own destiny in ways we haven’t yet perceived. How many of us alive today are taught this… feel it… sense it… reach for it? Why not? Religion has spent hundreds…thousands of years learning how to propagate itself, recruiting to fill its ranks. It's nourishing the passions and voids within us all; giving many a reason to go forward--to die for. Science must find a way to tap into these passions if it, too, wants to survive.

[Z]

The fate of the main character in Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga comes to mind...

Boy, that guy had vision, didn't he?

[Piscivore]

What's the difference between a simulation and a reproduction (or transfer, as EG so calls)?

A simulation or reproduction is a copy, and a copy isn't the original. Transfer to me implied moving the original to another piece of hardware, which just isn't possible.

Even, arguably, with the computers and software we have now.

[Serenity]

The fate of the main character in Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga comes to mind...

Boy, that guy had vision, didn't he?
I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t heard of it until now… read mainly non-fiction with a sprinkle of fiction here and there. I looked it up on Amazon for the summary/reviews. Sounds pretty good…. Not sure what’s worse: Working in an underground food mine or traveling through some random portal. I’d be scared if I knew my odds of dying were so high. Why not send robots? Is there communication with the ship once it travels through a portal? I'm guessing, not.

[Complexity]

Natural selection is alive and well and operating, as always, on people as well as other animals.

Your mommy may think you're special, but natural selection doesn't.

[SusanB-M1]

A most interesting topic - I have wondered about this many times over the years, but as far as I can remember have never heard it discussed in any detail. I have no scientific or logical opinions about it, but I do wonder whether, as our species has reached the stage it has now, developing technology and medicines etc, all these things do in fact come under the heading of evolutionary advantages, and therefore our adaptability will find a solution to problems before they wipe us out.

Or, of course, if a meteor or something destroys most of us, then the adaptability of the few that are left will be essential.

[uruk]

I think susanB-M1 makes an interesting point. I don't think we will ever be completely away from natural selection, especially on the large scale.
But then our minds are a natural part of us, so from that line of thinking just about anything we do becomes a "natural" part of our evolution. It just a introduction of concious evolutionary forces over the more traditional ones that we are familiar with

I do see an eventual blurring of the lines between "biological" and "mechanical" in our species. You can already begin to see movement in that direction. All of our devices (Computers, cell phones, etc..) are getting smaller and portable and in time implantable. Pocket PCs , head mount displays. etc..
see this site about an implatable cell phone tooth:
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002june/pda20020624015096.htm

Once nantechnology reaches fullbloom, the nature of humanity will begin to change. Then there will be full integration of biological with mechanical. And eventually there may even be a complete supplant of mechanical over biological.

That is , ofcourse, we don't get hit by an asteroid first.

[Beerina]

When we will fully understand how the brain works we wil be able to transfer our selves to software. And we won't mind because we will know how to experience anything, including happiness. Indestructibility will be as simple as taking a backup.

We've only been a few generations, if that, wherein people didn't "die off" because of genetic defects, low fitness, whatever you want to call it. So yes, that is slowly degrading "the average human" genetics.

But that won't have all that much effect in the paltry few generations until genetic engineering begins to fix issues.

And given the imminent (next few hundred years) of humans becoming capable of one or more of the following: complete genetic redesign, genetic improvement of intelligence, "uploading" the mind into computers (with self-improvement via speed increases and ability increases) even the scenario of the Gattaca movie is temporary.

My own secret pet belief is that we are already living in such a world, and this one is some bizarre birthing chamber to raise new people "the old fashioned" way* because, I don't know, bitter experience shows it's necessary to produce people who are responsible, or perhaps as a "vacation land" where people could go live "the old way", although why you'd want to do it, risking rape, torture, and murder, to say nothing of pain due to accidents or stress, ya got me!

* The runner up in my mind is we're some corner of a simulation where the simulators didn't realize such as we could arise, and haven't detected us yet because we're running to fast, or are too small for notice. Worst case scenario: they realize this, and shut us off, scared of getting their NIH grant cut because of letting intelligent life evolve in their simulation.

[Dogdoctor]

Humans have no control over natural selection. It is merely the result of the physical properties of the universe that natural selection occurs. We describe it as an active process but it is really the result of life and the laws of physics. Until the last human is dead there will be natural selection of humans. If we do things that eventually cause loss of life, this is natural selection in process. Every death of a human is part of natural selection. We will never get to the point where no humans die unless we also get to the point that no humans are born and I doubt that will occur.

[El Greco]

Sure, you can call everything "natural" and keep repeating that "natural selection is still king". So tell me what would be "unnatural selection" and let's start talking from there, because I get the feeling that several people have completely misunderstood what I said.

ETA: Man will no longer evolve significantly without him purposefully intervening in the evolution process. I can also quantify "significantly": No new species of the Homo genus is ever going to appear without purposeful human intervention (barring of course a huge natural disaster). Even less dramatic evolutionary processes that undoubtedly keep happening all the time, are constantly and increasingly modified *purposefully* by humans. This is not "natural" selection in my book. But of course you can call everything "natural" and then there is nothing to argue about.

[Dogdoctor]

It would still be natural selection that those most fit to survive will survive and those unfit to survive will die whether it be within an ecology created by humans or one with still some non human created or controlled life forms. I think the idea that humans can remove nature from the picture is not likely to be true. What is happening now to humans represents only a short period of time on the evolutionary scale. We can't predict what genes will be the best to survive in the future and at some point there will be pressure on the genetic pool of human beings and it will shift a little beyond our anticipation or control. This will continue until we quit reproducing.

[CapelDodger]

The fate of the main character in Frederick Pohl's Heechee Saga comes to mind...

Boy, that guy had vision, didn't he?
All hail Fred Pohl. He made me the cynic I am today, bless 'im.

[CapelDodger]

If there's going to be any Homo speciation in the near future, genetic screening will be the cause, not engineering. It's happening already. People with a seriously unwanted gene are opting for in-vitro if the embryos can be screened. This tends to purge deleterious genes from the more prosperous population's gene-pool.

Screening has already led to an oversupply of young men in China and South-East Asia, and that's not good in a world with no more frontier to conquer.

[CapelDodger]

What is happening now to humans represents only a short period of time on the evolutionary scale.
Drastic understatement. Nothing as exponential as Hom Sap has ever struck this planet. One species, and look what they've done to the place in 8000 years. Then look at how much of it happened in the last 2000, and how much in the last 200, 100, 50, 20.

Perhaps, after the horrible truth does its thing, humanity can take some solace from that. And/Or its successor species, if any.

[Smart_Cookie]

But can it truly still be called "natural selection" for humans, when we're now aware of the process?

Isn't it sort of knowing you're participating in a blind trial? Now that you KNOW that the process is occuring, you're - even unintentionally - influencing the process?

I'm just thinking of examples where we've changed "natural selection" for humans:
- developed vaccines that would have killed off thousands/millions
- developed surgeries that have saved those who would have died (example - appendicitis)
- etc.

And not just for our own species, but we've certainly been mucking around with other species (dogs of course; fish; most plants that we grow for food, like potatos, bananas and corn) for thousands of years.

[El Greco]

But can it truly still be called "natural selection" for humans, when we're now aware of the process?

Isn't it sort of knowing you're participating in a blind trial? Now that you KNOW that the process is occuring, you're - even unintentionally - influencing the process?

I'm just thinking of examples where we've changed "natural selection" for humans:
- developed vaccines that would have killed off thousands/millions
- developed surgeries that have saved those who would have died (example - appendicitis)
- etc.

And not just for our own species, but we've certainly been mucking around with other species (dogs of course; fish; most plants that we grow for food, like potatos, bananas and corn) for thousands of years.


That's why I asked for a theoretical example of what "non-natural" selection would be like, so that we can argue whether "natural" still exists and to what extent. If one thinks that "non-natural" selection is something that cannot exist not even theoretically, then there is not much to discuss.

[PenguinWarrior]

That's why I asked for a theoretical example of what "non-natural" selection would be like, so that we can argue whether "natural" still exists and to what extent. If one thinks that "non-natural" selection is something that cannot exist not even theoretically, then there is not much to discuss.

Personally, I'd define non-natural selection as a deliberate, intelligent attempt to select for certain properties in a life form. So, selective breeding of cows would count, as would current screening of embryos for harmful genes as would future wild scale genetic engineering for intelligence/attractiveness/whatever.

And yes, whilst natural selection has been interfered with by progress, especially in the west, non-natural selection, in terms of genetic engineering (and maybe later the use of artificial bodies and even brains, though we're wandering further and further into Sci-fi here) will make up for that, maybe even eventually meaning our descendents will be post-human in nature (hopefully getting rid of the various intolerant, selfish and violent impulses that are holding us back as a species at the moment, whilst keeping the better bits of our nature). I'm actually quite optimistic about our long term future (unlike how I am about my immediate short term one) and so think this will probably happen. It's either that or oblivion, anyhow.

[Correa Neto]

If we can, by selective breeding, create a strand of dogs (or corn, cows, rice, sheep, etc.) with certain characteristics that we consider desirable, this may be a selection course "not natural" for that species, but not for our own species. We shape other species, our environment -and why not, our bodies-to obtain some advantage. Advantages that will improve our survival chances, individually and as species.

At a very different scale, its not unlike the relationship between some ants and other species such as fungi. The main difference it that we are aware of the process. And nowdays or technology allows us to make it faster and more efficiently.

Can our species do it? If the answer is yes, then its natural for us. Now, if the outcome will be good or bad...

[Z]

Maybe there's such a thing as natural de-selection???

[Correa Neto]

Well, in a sense...

If a species fails to meet the criteria for its survival, then its de-selected... It will either go extinct or evolve into an new species or genus.

Wiping ourselves out of this universe by a nuclear war is certainly one way to achieve this. Being wiped out by the radiation of a nearby supernova explosion is another.

What many people fail to see is that brains are expensive organs to maintain. In the above übercatastrophic cases, having a large brain may eventually be counter productive, given all the energy needed to keep it. Individuals with smaller brains might have a small lead, since they would need less food and then...

[drkitten]

Sure, you can call everything "natural" and keep repeating that "natural selection is still king". So tell me what would be "unnatural selection" and let's start talking from there, because I get the feeling that several people have completely misunderstood what I said.

ETA: Man will no longer evolve significantly without him purposefully intervening in the evolution process. I can also quantify "significantly": No new species of the Homo genus is ever going to appear without purposeful human intervention (barring of course a huge natural disaster).

Horsefeathers.

One easy way for human speciation to occur -- without purposeful intervention -- would simply be to colonize somewhere. Put a colony of humans on Mars, or a distant star, somewhere far enough away that it's impractical for large-scale gene flow to happen between Earth and the daughter colony. The founder effect and genetic drift will more or less guarantee that the two gene pools will separate.

But beyond that, it's ludicrous to believe that humanity has somehow escaped the tyranny of natural selection. Unless one makes active participation in some sort of eugenics movement mandatory, human psychology will manage well all by itself. The Marching Morons has already been mentioned. No one's mentioned The Time Machine yet, so I'll bring that up, too. What many people don't realize is that human mating behavior is assortative, and the tendency towards assortative mating are in many ways getting stronger.

[.13.]

Personally, I'd define non-natural selection as a deliberate, intelligent attempt to select for certain properties in a life form. So, selective breeding of cows would count, as would current screening of embryos for harmful genes as would future wild scale genetic engineering for intelligence/attractiveness/whatever.

But since intelligence is a result of natural selection why would using that intelligence count as non-natural?

If we can, by selective breeding, create a strand of dogs (or corn, cows, rice, sheep, etc.) with certain characteristics that we consider desirable, this may be a selection course "not natural" for that species, but not for our own species. We shape other species, our environment -and why not, our bodies-to obtain some advantage. Advantages that will improve our survival chances, individually and as species.


I think it is still natural for the other species aswell because the environment of the species in question selects for certain characteristics.

[El Greco]

Horsefeathers.

One easy way for human speciation to occur -- without purposeful intervention -- would simply be to colonize somewhere. Put a colony of humans on Mars, or a distant star, somewhere far enough away that it's impractical for large-scale gene flow to happen between Earth and the daughter colony. The founder effect and genetic drift will more or less guarantee that the two gene pools will separate.

Only if there's no exchange between the populations. And what could break such an exchange ? Hmmm.... maybe the natural disasters we were talking about ?

But beyond that, it's ludicrous to believe that humanity has somehow escaped the tyranny of natural selection. Unless one makes active participation in some sort of eugenics movement mandatory, human psychology will manage well all by itself. The Marching Morons has already been mentioned. No one's mentioned The Time Machine yet, so I'll bring that up, too. What many people don't realize is that human mating behavior is assortative, and the tendency towards assortative mating are in many ways getting stronger.

You're still considering "natural" what man has already been purposefully interfering with. Does "natural selection" include healthcare ? Does it include vaccinations ? Does it include gene modifications ? If you think it does, then we don't have much to discuss.

So, according to you, in the near future of eugenics we will still be slaves of natural selection, just because human mating behavior is assortative. Sorry, no.

I ask you the same question: Define "non-natural" selection and tell me if it is ever possible.

[drkitten]

Only if there's no exchange between the populations

Nope. "Limited" exchange will do quite well. Read up on "ring species" sometime. Gene exchange acts as a force to homogenize the gene pool; genetic drift and the founder effect act to separate it. As long as the separation force exceeds the homogenization force, speciation will eventually occur, even if the homogenization force is non-zero.



So, according to you, in the near future of eugenics we will still be slaves of natural selection, just because human mating behavior is assortative.

Yup. That's the recipe for speciation; bottlenecks in gene flow.

[.13.]

Man will no longer evolve significantly without him purposefully intervening in the evolution process.

I think the opposite is true: Man will no longer evolve significantly only if he purposefully intervenes in the evolution process. (Intervention to stop or slow down evolution.)

If we stop evolution completely we would have an environment that selects for the combination of genes that currently exist against any other combination of genes.

[El Greco]

Nope. "Limited" exchange will do quite well. Read up on "ring species" sometime. Gene exchange acts as a force to homogenize the gene pool; genetic drift and the founder effect act to separate it. As long as the separation force exceeds the homogenization force, speciation will eventually occur, even if the homogenization force is non-zero.

And why exactly there would be "limited" exchange ? And if even "limited" exchange occurs between intelligent and advanced humans what would stop them from homogenizing the populations ?

But let's get it simpler: I'm still saying that no new human speciation will occur on Earth without purposeful human intervention, barring a huge natural disaster.

Yup. That's the recipe for speciation; bottlenecks in gene flow.

Define what "non-natural" selection would be. I have already said that I consider purposeful gene modification to be a "non-natural" means of selection. Do you consider this "natural" ?

[Z]

OK, I mis-spoke. By 'deselect', I mean could there be such a thing as a natural process that allows unfit species to continue alongside fit species. Like having a group on the computer (with one group highlighted), and then 'de-selecting' so that all members survive anyway.

Not sure if I'm making sense, or not.

But that's what seems to be happening now, after a fashion...

[drkitten]

Define what "non-natural" selection would be. I have already said that I consider purposeful gene modification to be a "non-natural" means of selection. Do you consider this "natural" ?

Depends on what you mean by "purposeful."

Sexual selection is widely regarded as a part of natural selection; choosing mates because they "look hot" has led to the peacock's tale, the (male) elephant seal's size, and so forth.

If you sleep with intelligent women because intelligent women are hot, that's assortative mating and a part of natural selection.

If you sleep with intelligent women because you want your children to be intelligent, that's eugenics, and artificial selection.

This, by the way, answers your first question :


And why exactly there would be "limited" exchange ? And if even "limited" exchange occurs between intelligent and advanced humans what would stop them from homogenizing the populations ?

In the first example (the extraterrestrial colony), there would be limited genetic exchange because it's difficult and expensive to get people from point A to point B.

In the second example (assortative mating), the reason that the Morlocks and Eloi don't interbreed is because they don't want to. If Morlock men mostly think that Morlock women are hot -- but not Eloi women -- then the genetic exchange will be quite limited, unless you're going to somehow force Morlock men to breed with Eloi women.....

[El Greco]

Depends on what you mean by "purposeful."

One of the things I mean by "purposeful" is modification on the DNA level via biomechanics. I also mean a few other things but let's not make it too broad for now. So sexual selection is not "non-natural" selection.

But forget my definition. How would you define non-natural selection ?

In the first example (the extraterrestrial colony), there would be limited genetic exchange because it's difficult and expensive to get people from point A to point B.

Even if it is difficult, as long as it is still possible I suspect that humans so advanced as to colonize other planets would have no problem in selecting and incorporating whatever traits they deemed useful in whatever population they wanted.

Am I to assume that you at least agree with my on Earth clause ?

In the second example (assortative mating), the reason that the Morlocks and Eloi don't interbreed is because they don't want to. If Morlock men mostly think that Morlock women are hot -- but not Eloi women -- then the genetic exchange will be quite limited, unless you're going to somehow force Morlock men to breed with Eloi women.....

And you can see this happening where exactly ?

[drkitten]

But forget my definition. How would you define non-natural selection ?

Already defined. "Artificial selection" has a well-established definition among biologists. It's when a person selects breeding partners or parameters specifically for the purposes of establishing traits in the offspring.



Even if it is difficult, as long as it is still possible I suspect that humans so advanced as to colonize other planets would have no problem in selecting and incorporating whatever traits they deemed useful in whatever population they wanted.

This has nothing to do with speciation by genetic bottleneck, unfortunately.

The problem isn't with "traits deemed useful." The problem is with genetic drift. The two populations will drift apart, because there's not enough gene flow from one group to another.
Neutral mutations on Earth will stay confined to Earth; neutral mutations on the colony will stay confined to the colony, until there's enough genetic difference to make breeding difficult/impossible.


Am I to assume that you at least agree with my on Earth clause ?

And you can see this happening where exactly ?

Absolutely not. You can see it happen -- literally -- everywhere on Earth. Look up assortative mating sometime.

[El Greco]

Already defined. "Artificial selection" has a well-established definition among biologists. It's when a person selects breeding partners or parameters specifically for the purposes of establishing traits in the offspring.

So you consider breeding partner selection to be "artificial selection" but biomechanics and eugenics are "natural selection" ? Please clarify.


The two populations will drift apart, because there's not enough gene flow from one group to another.

The populations will not drift apart, because at any time the advanced humans will be able to introduce whatever trait of any population in every other population. There will be forced, artifical gene flow.

Absolutely not. You can see it happen -- literally -- everywhere on Earth. Look up assortative mating sometime.

I was talking about human speciation. So you think that barring a huge natural disaster, we can have a new species of the homo genus on Earth ?

[drkitten]

So you consider breeding partner selection to be "artificial selection" but biomechanics and eugenics are "natural selection" ?

No.


The populations will not drift apart, because at any time the advanced humans will be able to introduce whatever trait of any population in every other population. There will be forced, artifical gene flow.

I see no reason for them to bother.

So you think that barring a huge natural disaster, we can have a new species of the homo genus on Earth ?

Exactly which part of "yes" was difficult to understand? Humans, left to their own preferences, mate assortively.

[El Greco]

No.

So, since you are making me do all the work, is it safe to assume that in a world where biomechanic procedures will be routine all over the world, the selection will no longer be "natural " ?


I see no reason for them to bother.

I do.

Exactly which part of "yes" was difficult to understand? Humans, left to their own preferences, mate assortively.

It was very difficult to understand that part of "yes" that replied to my assertion that bimechanics and eugenics will be altering so much the human genome in the near future that breeding selections will play a minor role in speciation. And let's not talk about isolation...

[drkitten]

So, since you are making me do all the work, is it safe to assume that in a world where biomechanic procedures will be routine all over the world, the selection will no longer be "natural " ?

No.

Just because a procedure is routine does not mean that everyone will undergo it.



I do.

Why? Treatment for Rh-incompatibilities are "routine" now, but many people forgo them (and forego having children as a result). They may be routine, but they're still expensive, time-consuming, and carry an element of risk.

Similarly, laser surgery to correct vision is routine -- but time-consuming and expensive. Laser surgery has not replace corrective lenses, nor do I expect it to.

my assertion that bimechanics and eugenics will be altering so much the human genome in the near future that breeding selections will play a minor role in speciation.

Your assertion, sir, is laughable. I suggest you assert something slightly more realistic, like a sudden discovery of a previously unknown breeding method involving storks and cabbage patches.

[El Greco]

Just because a procedure is routine does not mean that everyone will undergo it.

A whole lot of health problems will be treatable with gene modifications, so there is very good chance that pretty much everyone will undergo it in the future.


Why? Treatment for Rh-incompatibilities are "routine" now, but many people forgo them (and forego having children as a result). They may be routine, but they're still expensive, time-consuming, and carry an element of risk.

Similarly, laser surgery to correct vision is routine -- but time-consuming and expensive. Laser surgery has not replace corrective lenses, nor do I expect it to.

Are you aware that we are talking about a future where people will have colonized othe planets ? And you talk about cost, risk and time ?


Your assertion, sir, is laughable. I suggest you assert something slightly more realistic, like a sudden discovery of a previously unknown breeding method involving storks and cabbage patches.

Certainly not as laughable as your assertion of sympatric speciation in ...humans!

In any case, nice way to respond to an argument. I like your posts and admire your knowledge, but sometimes you seem to lose it. It's a pity to let those times mar your otherwise excellent argumentation. Just a friendly suggestion, which I'm sure you don't need.

[PenguinWarrior]

But since intelligence is a result of natural selection why would using that intelligence count as non-natural?


It would count as non-natural because the properties of the living things are being driven towards some desired end, rather than just towards the properties that best ensure survival in the wild, as would happen "naturally".

I think you are attempting to neuter the word "natural" to the point of uselessness. By your reasoning, the Empire State Building is a "natural" feature of the landscape, the internet is a "natural" phenomenon and humans are "naturally" able to fly. Whilst this may be technically true (in an extremely pedantic sense), it means that we are now left with a completely superfluous word in the English language, and a gap where a new word meaning what people mean when they say "natural" needs to be.

[.13.]

It would count as non-natural because the properties of the living things are being driven towards some desired end, rather than just towards the properties that best ensure survival in the wild, as would happen "naturally".

But those genes would best ensure their survival in the environment where they are. Whether they would be helpful or not in a different environment is irrelevant. Also your answer just shifts my question from 'intelligence' to 'desire'.


I think you are attempting to neuter the word "natural" to the point of uselessness. By your reasoning, the Empire State Building is a "natural" feature of the landscape, the internet is a "natural" phenomenon and humans are "naturally" able to fly. Whilst this may be technically true (in an extremely pedantic sense), it means that we are now left with a completely superfluous word in the English language, and a gap where a new word meaning what people mean when they say "natural" needs to be.

Consider a bird that cracks open nuts by dropping them on the ground. Those birds don't have strong beaks and muscles to crack open the nuts. Would you consider their method unnatural? What about chimpanzees breaking them with rocks? What about humans and nut crackers? Can't we extend this line of thinking to human capability of flight?

I'm not trying to neuter the word. It is a commonly used shorthand for "something not man made". I'm not trying to be extremely pedantic either. I just think it is important to understand what else 'natural' means. As a reminder that we are indeed natural part of the natural world. Judging by the numbers of people that don't accept evolution as a fact it is an important reminder.

What about birdnests vs human houses: We could use the word 'natural' as 'anything not made by lifeforms' when we want to discuss geology. It's about context. I wouldn't say the Empire State Building is a natural feature of the landscape in that context. But in the context of evolution and natural selection it doesn't make sense to include birdnests and exclude houses.

[CapelDodger]

But those genes would best ensure their survival in the environment where they are. Whether they would be helpful or not in a different environment is irrelevant. Also your answer just shifts my question from 'intelligence' to 'desire'.
How would you respond if "desired" were replaced by "intended"?

[CapelDodger]

Consider a bird that cracks open nuts by dropping them on the ground.
Consider philosophers who have tortoises dropped on their heads. Makes you think.

[PenguinWarrior]

How would you respond if "desired" were replaced by "intended"?

Which would be closer to what I meant, I suppose. People are extremely picky about words on here. Whilst I don't think being clear on definitions is a bad thing, I think that overly analysing the precise wording of a sentence, as opposed to its meaning as a whole, is.

And yes, I don't consider birdnests to be natural features of the landscape either. Nor termite mounds or any other construction of living things. Not that they are supernatural features of the landscape, mind you, but I don't believe in such things anyway. I think the problem here is a mixing of definitions of natural I.e. Natural vs Artificial and Natural vs Supernatural. The first is appropriate to this discussion, the second more appropriate to debates online with creationists. When thinking about scientific matters, the second doesn't really occur to me, as anyone who has anything useful to contribute won't be bringing it up as part of their argument.

[.13.]

How would you respond if "desired" were replaced by "intended"?

Why would it be any different?

Consider philosophers who have tortoises dropped on their heads. Makes you think.

I don't understand what you mean.

[CapelDodger]

Why would it be any different?
Intention implies intelligence, whereas desire doesn't. There could be no switch from "intelligence" to "intention", since both are the same. Yet the argument would remain the same. Confusing.

To my mind, the distinction is between selection by intent and selection by chance. That would make the early selection by humans natural selection - it will have been by accident. Only after humans twigged to heredity has there been unnatural selection. Unless we stray onto ID territory, which heaven forfend.

[Z]

Well this discussion has made me think, a lot.

When I started it, I was of the opinion that all of our wonderful medical and scientific advancement would actually have the undesirable effect of allowing flawed and potentially weak genes to survive and multiply; but now I'm not so sure after all.

Go, genetic engineers!

:D

[CapelDodger]

Which would be closer to what I meant, I suppose. People are extremely picky about words on here. Whilst I don't think being clear on definitions is a bad thing, I think that overly analysing the precise wording of a sentence, as opposed to its meaning as a whole, is.
But it is going to happen here. One of my life-rules, from way back, is "don't lay traps for yourself". All sorts are circling out there. Words such as "desire", "belief", "should", "must" and such should be used judiciously. Otherwise it's the Swamp of Disillusion for you, beyond the Mire of Isaidwhatnow?

And yes, I don't consider birdnests to be natural features of the landscape either. Nor termite mounds or any other construction of living things. Not that they are supernatural features of the landscape, mind you, but I don't believe in such things anyway. I think the problem here is a mixing of definitions of natural I.e. Natural vs Artificial and Natural vs Supernatural. The first is appropriate to this discussion, the second more appropriate to debates online with creationists. When thinking about scientific matters, the second doesn't really occur to me, as anyone who has anything useful to contribute won't be bringing it up as part of their argument.
My take is different, of course, see above. (Let's dismiss the supernatural.) Organisms have been manipulating their environments for a long time. A termite mound is just a very advanced example, and termite colonies are very advanced organisms. There's no sign of intelligence or planning, just a complex instinctive control mechanism finely-honed by natural selection.

Here I am arguing bloody semantics. What has come over me? :)

[CapelDodger]

Go, genetic engineers!

:D
Genetic engineering my arse. Six billion-odd folk out there and only a very small proportion saving up for genetically engineered kids. Forget engineering, think selection by deliberate screening. That's affordable by a significant market, and will become more affordable and sophisticated in the near future. The prosperous population will gradually purge itself of deleterious genes. They will come to see the old-fashioned trial-and-error population as potentially contaminating. Two species could derive because of social rather than geographic isolation.

That would be natural selection if it wasn't planned or promoted. It would be a result of human nature, itself a product of natural selection.

[.13.]

Intention implies intelligence, whereas desire doesn't. There could be no switch from "intelligence" to "intention", since both are the same. Yet the argument would remain the same. Confusing.

We are back to my original question in post #39 then: "But since intelligence is a result of natural selection why would using that intelligence count as non-natural?"


To my mind, the distinction is between selection by intent and selection by chance. That would make the early selection by humans natural selection - it will have been by accident. Only after humans twigged to heredity has there been unnatural selection. Unless we stray onto ID territory, which heaven forfend.

Selection is not the random part in evolution.

[Brainache]

Most people in this thread seem to be assuming a continuation of our modern technological society for an indefinite time into the future. Is this realistic?

I can see our society falling apart in the not too distant future by lots of different means, not just asteroids and nuclear bombs.

Famine, disease, climate change, conventional warfare all have the potential to stress the infrastucture supporting our unprecedented population beyond its capacity to cope.

To take one example:
Imagine what happens if the worst case scenarios of Global Warming eventuate. There would be hundreds of millions of people displaced all over the world. How could any economy survive a refugee crisis like that? Who would be able to feed themselves? Who would survive to raise children? Would indeed the smaller brained scavengers(sorry can't remember who brought up that point) have a distinct advantage?

This all sounds a bit alarmist I'll admit, but assuming interplanetary colonies and universal genetic engineering seems far less likely to me than a simple over stretching of our resources resulting in a massive population collapse.

So no, I don't believe humans have outgrown natural selection.

[Z]

That's an interesting idea, as well - except that for once we have a near total globalization of the species. Extinctions in the past have usually been limited to a handful of species in a given area, rather than a near-global mass extinction. The dinosaurs were the only real exception to this rule; and, chances are, whatever caused the mass extinction of those creatures would have a similar effect on our species. But would it result in total extinction??? Can mankind now survive in nearly any climate, under almost any harsh conditions?

The question, of course, is can man repopulate once hit with such an extensive loss of individuals?

(Great - now I have an urge to go watch Mad Max movies...)

[Correa Neto]

That's an interesting idea, as well - except that for once we have a near total globalization of the species. Extinctions in the past have usually been limited to a handful of species in a given area, rather than a near-global mass extinction. The dinosaurs were the only real exception to this rule; and, chances are, whatever caused the mass extinction of those creatures would have a similar effect on our species. But would it result in total extinction??? Can mankind now survive in nearly any climate, under almost any harsh conditions?

The question, of course, is can man repopulate once hit with such an extensive loss of individuals?

(Great - now I have an urge to go watch Mad Max movies...)

Uhm... There's something incorrect there.

There were huge mass extinctions in the past. Check the Permian-Triassic boundary, event, mass extinction [add term here] for example.

And the K/T boundary marks the disappearance of much more than just dinos. Marine reptiles, pterosaurs, ammonites, all of them went to oblivion.

If our species goes through such an event, be it generated by ourselves (as some claim is already going on) or by something else (meteorite, alien invaders, the rapture, [add catastrophe here], depending on the magnitude of the event, isolated population pockets would survive.

If new human species would appear after such event, it would depend on how much technology and resources were left behind. To allow the isolation needed for speciation, we would have to be brought to a point where little or no gene exchange between the surviving scattered human populations is allowed. At such drastic scenario, large brains may eventually be a luxury and...

[Roboramma]

Uhm... There's something incorrect there.

There were huge mass extinctions in the past. Check the Permian-Triassic boundary, event, mass extinction [add term here] for example.

Not to mention more recent extinctions. Look at all the large mammals that have died off in the last few tens of thousands of years on every continent and large island. Of course, there's evidence that these were human induced extintions, but some were likely to be caused by climate change as well.

As an example of species that have large ranges dwindling - not very long ago Lions were the large animal with the largest range on earth. Now they are mostly an african preditor, with a few in India.

I wouldn't be surprised if we follow a similar route in the not so distant future.

[CapelDodger]

We are back to my original question in post #39 then: "But since intelligence is a result of natural selection why would using that intelligence count as non-natural?"
The use of human intelligence is natural, but when it's put to the purpose of selective breeding the result is artificial selection. If eugenics should lead to speciation - which would be completely human natural - it would be by artificial selection.

Selection is not the random part in evolution.
Sorry, guv, don't get your point. Succinct is good, terse even, but I need a bit more to work with. :)

[drkitten]

Most people in this thread seem to be assuming a continuation of our modern technological society for an indefinite time into the future. Is this realistic?

I don't think there's any reason for us to believe that it will not be.


I can see our society falling apart in the not too distant future by lots of different means, not just asteroids and nuclear bombs.

Famine, disease, climate change, conventional warfare all have the potential to stress the infrastucture supporting our unprecedented population beyond its capacity to cope.

Offhand, I can't think of very many examples of societies that have actively lost technological capacity other than by deliberate decision (such as the Tokugawa-era Japanese opting to destroy their firearms capacity). Even in the classic "falls of civilization," such as the fall of the Roman Empire or the aftermath of the Black Death, society usually held on to its technological capacity and often expanded it in response to the new demands. I don't know of any societies, for example, that lost the capacity to forge iron and had to return to bronze, or that forgot how to build arches.

The sole exceptions I can think of are biological and resource-based. For example, I think that dogs and pigs went extinct on a couple of Polynesian islands and were not replaced. Similarly, the Easter Islanders lost deep-sea capacity when they ran out of trees suitable for making large canoes with.



To take one example:
Imagine what happens if the worst case scenarios of Global Warming eventuate. There would be hundreds of millions of people displaced all over the world. How could any economy survive a refugee crisis like that? Who would be able to feed themselves? Who would survive to raise children?

Well, the refugees would be a wonderful source of cheap labor. My understanding is that much fo the farming in the United States is currenlty done by undocumented migratory workers. I'd think that putting more people to work farming would result in more food being grown, not less. Similarly, using corvee labor to raise children has a long history, from Aunt Jemima to the various nannies of British history. I'm sure that there are any number of Canadians and Finns that would be happy to let me raise their children for them (and work their plantations, and pick their papayas, et cetera) in exchange for a subsistence wage while they make ever cheaper cell phones for the plantation overseers.

[CapelDodger]

Most people in this thread seem to be assuming a continuation of our modern technological society for an indefinite time into the future. Is this realistic?
It's certainly an assumption. And things clearly can't go on as they are. My tentative prediction is that, at the end of the ... unpleasantness, there'll have been a reduction in scale rather than scope. We could probably pluck a billion (selected) people off the planet tonight without affecting modern industrial traded society. The next billion could probably be adjusted for easily enough. It's gonna be ugly - that's not tentative - but return to the Iron Age or some such? I don't think so.

Back to Barons and Peasants as a social order? Quite possibly. Aristocracy used to justify its privileges by their "superior breeding". We might mock the chinless wonders of today, but after a few generations of the rich selecting their embryos they'll have the same argument to hand, with rather more substance.

[CapelDodger]

I don't think there's any reason for us to believe that it will not be.Another vote against catastrophism :) .

Even in the classic "falls of civilization," such as the fall of the Roman Empire or the aftermath of the Black Death, society usually held on to its technological capacity and often expanded it in response to the new demands. I don't know of any societies, for example, that lost the capacity to forge iron and had to return to bronze, or that forgot how to build arches.
True. What was lost by a more disordered society was advance into new techniques.

The sole exceptions I can think of are biological and resource-based. For example, I think that dogs and pigs went extinct on a couple of Polynesian islands and were not replaced. Similarly, the Easter Islanders lost deep-sea capacity when they ran out of trees suitable for making large canoes with.
Somebody should make a film about the last days of the Easter Island trees. The hero would be championing the "new trees come from old trees, like children from mothers" theory and trying to protect the last few stands. The evil statue industry guys, backed by the priests, are championing the "trees grow spontaneously" theory. Having lost the argument against vested interests the charismatic bunch steal the last logs to build a raft and head off into the sunset, soon to arrive in Chile. Run credits over shots of Easter Island today interspersed with shots of the oil industry to ram the message home.

I'd think that putting more people to work farming would result in more food being grown, not less.
Mao's reason for rejecting population concerns. There are many more limiting factors than the supply of labour.

On the other hand, if agricultural zones shift with global warming the new workers will mostly be immigrant. From nearby - say, within the US from the old zone - or from further afield - say, cheaper.

Similarly, using corvee labor to raise children has a long history, from Aunt Jemima to the various nannies of British history. I'm sure that there are any number of Canadians and Finns that would be happy to let me raise their children for them (and work their plantations, and pick their papayas, et cetera) in exchange for a subsistence wage while they make ever cheaper cell phones for the plantation overseers.
In Victorian and Edwardian Britain service (as a servant) was a major employer. It went into serious decline from the Great War, but it's heading upwards again. The loss of servants impelled the development of labour-saving devices, so at least today's servants have them to hand. It's progress of a sort. Not quite what I hoped for back in the 60's but hey, we were young.

[CapelDodger]

To allow the isolation needed for speciation, we would have to be brought to a point where little or no gene exchange between the surviving scattered human populations is allowed. At such drastic scenario, large brains may eventually be a luxury and...
Such an event may well have occurred 70K years ago or so after a cataclysmic volcano (Toba?). Estimates vary, but the human population arguably fell to 10,000 or thereabouts, in isolated groups. None dropped the big brain - or if they did, there's no evidence left. (They probably tasted like chicken.) The big brain evolved for a reason, part of which is surely the ability to adapt to new circumstances far more rapidly than by natural selection alone.

I can imagine the Easter Islanders, left to their isolation, might well have ditched much of the brain because, after all, what did it have to work with? Even the social aspects would become somewhat atrophied in such a limited population.
(I've read Galapagos, I'm a Vonnegut fan from way back, but the idea's a vehicle rather than a science-based prediction :) .)

[Brainache]

I don't think there's any reason for us to believe that it will not be.



Offhand, I can't think of very many examples of societies that have actively lost technological capacity other than by deliberate decision (such as the Tokugawa-era Japanese opting to destroy their firearms capacity). Even in the classic "falls of civilization," such as the fall of the Roman Empire or the aftermath of the Black Death, society usually held on to its technological capacity and often expanded it in response to the new demands. I don't know of any societies, for example, that lost the capacity to forge iron and had to return to bronze, or that forgot how to build arches.

That is all true I suppose, but the manufacture of say computers or aeroplanes is a lot more complex than having a village blacksmith or stone mason. It requires resources and technologies from all over the world.

If the infrastucture breaks down there will be no factories to produce the tools needed to build the tools you need to learn how to build the things like planes and computers. No large scale agriculture if the combine harvesters can't get fuel etc.


The sole exceptions I can think of are biological and resource-based. For example, I think that dogs and pigs went extinct on a couple of Polynesian islands and were not replaced. Similarly, the Easter Islanders lost deep-sea capacity when they ran out of trees suitable for making large canoes with.

Well I'm pretty convinced that most of the world's easily accessable resources of coal, oil and gas have already gone. How are the survivors going to dig up what's left? I know I'm being pessimistic, but I think a new stone age is all any survivors of a global economic collapse could look forward to.




Well, the refugees would be a wonderful source of cheap labor. My understanding is that much fo the farming in the United States is currenlty done by undocumented migratory workers. I'd think that putting more people to work farming would result in more food being grown, not less. Similarly, using corvee labor to raise children has a long history, from Aunt Jemima to the various nannies of British history. I'm sure that there are any number of Canadians and Finns that would be happy to let me raise their children for them (and work their plantations, and pick their papayas, et cetera) in exchange for a subsistence wage while they make ever cheaper cell phones for the plantation overseers.

I don't think you are being serious here, but I'll pretend. Take any large city like London or Chicago, how much agriculture does it take to feed a city like that? How many more millions could they support before things got really ugly? Remember I'm talking about hundreds of millions of people displaced from the most productive land, not a few thousand.

I think such a scenario is probable and very scary. What natural selection would make of our descendants I don't believe anyone can say, but I do believe it's safe to say that natural selection will carry on regardless.

A good science fiction book for anyone interested in this subject is "Evolution" by Stephen Baxter.

[.13.]

The use of human intelligence is natural, but when it's put to the purpose of selective breeding the result is artificial selection. If eugenics should lead to speciation - which would be completely human natural - it would be by artificial selection.

Special pleading. Or can you tell me why using it to selective breeding is not natural?

Try looking the breeding process from the "outside". It looks like one species is imposing selective pressure on another species.

Let me assure you I'm not being semantic. Even though 'artificial selection' in contrast to 'natural selection' in everyday language is probably clear for everyone. But in my opinion it can't be used in that meaning in context of this thread 'Has Humankind outgrown natural selection?' Escaping natural selection is like escaping the second law of thermodynamics. How can you escape your environment?


Sorry, guv, don't get your point. Succinct is good, terse even, but I need a bit more to work with. :)

You were comparing selection by intent to selection by chance. I guess we are now left with intentional/unintentional selection and we are back on track.

[Roboramma]

Let me assure you I'm not being semantic. Even though 'artificial selection' in contrast to 'natural selection' in everyday language is probably clear for everyone. But in my opinion it can't be used in that meaning in context of this thread 'Has Humankind outgrown natural selection?' Escaping natural selection is like escaping the second law of thermodynamics. How can you escape your environment?

I like to think of artificial selection as a special case of natural selection. Similar to sexual selection, it is something that can be distinguished meaningfully and informatively from the rest of natural selection, but at the same time it falls under the same general category.

[Correa Neto]

Such an event may well have occurred 70K years ago or so after a cataclysmic volcano (Toba?). Estimates vary, but the human population arguably fell to 10,000 or thereabouts, in isolated groups. None dropped the big brain - or if they did, there's no evidence left. (They probably tasted like chicken.) The big brain evolved for a reason, part of which is surely the ability to adapt to new circumstances far more rapidly than by natural selection alone.

I can imagine the Easter Islanders, left to their isolation, might well have ditched much of the brain because, after all, what did it have to work with? Even the social aspects would become somewhat atrophied in such a limited population.
(I've read Galapagos, I'm a Vonnegut fan from way back, but the idea's a vehicle rather than a science-based prediction :) .)

The scenario I pointed must be worse than that. That's why I think its far-fetched. Despite the population decrease, the remaining big-brained people still had an edge. Maybe because the changes didn´t last for too long, there was a big empty world left to explore and harvest, or any other reason.

As for social structure, well, smaller groups possibly would require smaller sets of rules. In such dystopia, I think religion possibly would provide an advantage.

If Homo florensis was a real species, then it may be an example of smaller brains (and bodies as well) as a response to environmental pressures.

[.13.]

I like to think of artificial selection as a special case of natural selection. Similar to sexual selection, it is something that can be distinguished meaningfully and informatively from the rest of natural selection, but at the same time it falls under the same general category.

I agree and as I said I understand the usefullness of the word. I'm not arguing over semantics. I'm arguing that it can't be used as an example of non-natural selection. This traces back to post #39 where I questioned PenguinWarrior about this issue.

[Roboramma]

I've been rereading Dawkin's The Ancestor's Tale and I happened upon something today that's of interest to this thread.

After a discusion about colour vision where he touches on colourblindness in humans Dawkins says:

In humans dichromatic colourblindness afflicts about two per cent of males. Don't be confused, incidentally, by the fact that other kinds of red-green colourblindness are more common (affecting about eight per cent of males). These individuals are called anomalous trichromats: genetically they are trichormats, but one of their three kinds of opsins doesn't work.*

*Mark Ridley, in Mendel's Demon (retitled The Cooperative Gene in America) points out that the eight per cent (or higher) figure applies to Europeans, and others with a history of good medicine. Hunter-gatherers, and other 'traditional' societies closer to the cutting edge of natural selection, show a lower percentage. Ridley suggests that a relaxation of natural selection has allowed colourblindness to increase.

Just thought it was an interesting example of the sort of thing that can happen when selective pressures are relaxed.

[CapelDodger]

The scenario I pointed must be worse than that. That's why I think its far-fetched. Despite the population decrease, the remaining big-brained people still had an edge. Maybe because the changes didn´t last for too long, there was a big empty world left to explore and harvest, or any other reason.
Absolutely. Big brains can adapt orders of magnitude faster than natural selection. Lose this resource, cast around for another and work out how to exploit it. Competition was reduced at least as much as resources were.

As for social structure, well, smaller groups possibly would require smaller sets of rules. In such dystopia, I think religion possibly would provide an advantage.
I think differently. I think religion comes into its own with larger groups, where not everybody is acquainted. When the leading hierarchy are well know their respect has to be earned. We monkeys then add an awesome quality to them (particularly the leader). The leader hosts the festivals - we are a party animal, after all - and gets laid a lot, is this any different from Clebrity Culture? I think not. :)

When the king is someone you're never going to meet, living far beyond your normal range, the awe has to be transferred and religion is a good way to do it. Early God-Kings are ten-a-penny.


If Homo florensis was a real species, then it may be an example of smaller brains (and bodies as well) as a response to environmental pressures.
Particularly extreme, though. Just as the Easter Island experience has been. Easter Island could almost have been designed as an experiment, the scale and free variables were so limited. 500 years tells us what humans do to a limited environment, but is an eye-blink in evolutionary terms.

It was very different for that 10,000 or so, probably in Africa and SE Asia mostly. They had plenty of places to go and people to meet. :)

[Z]

Assume, for a moment, that mankind reaches the tech level required to colonize sustainable civilizations on other planets. How would this, in your opinions, affect natural selection?

[CapelDodger]

Special pleading. Or can you tell me why using it to selective breeding is not natural?
Look at the sentence again. The result of the application of intelligence to breeding is artificial selection, just as the result of the application of intelligence to smelting is artificial geology. The application of intelligence is perfectly natural.

Try looking the breeding process from the "outside". It looks like one species is imposing selective pressure on another species.
In the environment of natural selection none of the competing species has a plan. That's what distinguishes it from artificial selection, which does have a plan. The plan is to breed something with certain desirable qualities - more tractable, more productive, more robust, whatever, more for less, basically. If there's a plan in the natural world it amounts to no more than getting another generation out on the table for another spin of the wheel.

Let me assure you I'm not being semantic. Even though 'artificial selection' in contrast to 'natural selection' in everyday language is probably clear for everyone. But in my opinion it can't be used in that meaning in context of this thread 'Has Humankind outgrown natural selection?' Escaping natural selection is like escaping the second law of thermodynamics. How can you escape your environment?
I strongly suspect that the title intended to convey "natural selection" in the commonly understood sense.

If humanity gets hit by a nasty global epidemic. natural selection will kick in. Unless it's universally terminal, of course, which would make it so remarkable that I'd spend my last breath abusing the researchers that created it. If some group launches a scheme of selective human breeding towards some goal, that will be artficial selection and not, I think, what the thread is about.

Is it in the nature of Hom Sap, product of natural selection, to conceive of and employ eugenics? The evidence says yes.


You were comparing selection by intent to selection by chance. I guess we are now left with intentional/unintentional selection and we are back on track.
Let's just drop the intentional. I never should have brought it up. :o

[CapelDodger]

Assume, for a moment, that mankind reaches the tech level required to colonize sustainable civilizations on other planets. How would this, in your opinions, affect natural selection?
At first glance, these colonies are going to very controlled, artificial environments, not the usual playground of natural selection. Cousin matings, for instance, will probably not be encouraged, or perhaps even allowed. Even when a colony is first sustainable there will still have to be regimentation. Only when it expands from that, when it is no longer truly alien, might natural selection kick in.

At that point I would expect speciation to start if there wasn't a significant interaction between colonies over inter-stellar distances. But there could be. Frozen sperm and eggs can do the job, and cryogenics in deep-space is no energy-guzzler. They're very light and cheap to launch and it doesn't matter how long they take as long as they're coming in regularly and aren't degraded. In those circumstances the attitudes of the colonists - who will be a good few generations down the line from the founders - to breeding will be crucial. Sex for love, genes for children?

[Soapy Sam]

Evolutionary selection is the response of a genepool to selective forces in the environment.
If the environment is "natural" then the forces are natural.
If the environment is artificial, the forces natural to that environment will be artificial forces. (Though maybe indistinguishable in effect from natural ones).

The question is- can the environment ever be wholly artificial? Even on a starship there will be parasites, if only selfish genes.

Right now, the human genome is under pressure from disease and parasites, which are continually evolving. Sex is busily shuffling our genes to keep up. This is natural selection. If we have stopped evolving and our opponents have not, we are screwed.
By destroying the environments where such diseases originally flourished, we are artificially affecting our own evolution. By encouraging Caesarean sections we may be affecting our evolution. By enabling premature infants to survive bearing gene combinations normally lethal in infancy, we affect our evolution.
Evolution is not directional. We may be creating a situation which lets humans evolve in directions of lowered intelligence or disease resistance. It's still evolution.

With a population in the billions, it will take a long time for any specific gene change to spread widely. It's even possible that culture may act as an isolation barrier to let a particular genetic shift spread through a small subgroup who interbreed. (The Ashkenazim for example, Amish, Hutterites, Mormons). We don't need geographical isolation if culture does the job as well.

"Natural" selection is doing fine thanks.

[AtaraX]

As CapelDoger point out natural section and genetic change occurs very slowly. So ridiculously slowly as to be rendered completely moot to humanity. The significant driving factor for humanity now is culture and technology.

Just look at the changes we have made in the last 6000 years or even the last 100 years, not even the firing of a neural impulse to start the blink of and evolutionary eye. Our genes are for all intents and purposes the same but we are stronger, bigger, faster, smarter, healthier, happier than we have ever been. We solve problems and live in a world that has changed and continues to change faster than natural selection could ever adapt us for yet we survive.

Why? Because for better or worse we are in the driver's seat of this change. Look out life, the naked chimps are driving the bus now. So we are going to have a world with Viagra, chocolate, breast implants and televised football games.

We are molding the world to be comfortable for us. And we can and will change the world far faster than natural selection can hope to change us. Asking what effect natural selection will have on us is like asking what effect the velocity of a person running away will have on the impact of a bullet piercing his heart. None whatsoever.

[.13.]

Look at the sentence again. The result of the application of intelligence to breeding is artificial selection, just as the result of the application of intelligence to smelting is artificial geology. The application of intelligence is perfectly natural.

As I've said I understand from the language point of view what artificial selection means. Before we continue any further let's clarify things: Do you agree that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection?

[CapelDodger]

Why? Because for better or worse we are in the driver's seat of this change. Look out life, the naked chimps are driving the bus now. So we are going to have a world with Viagra, chocolate, breast implants and televised football games.
Chocolate breast implants ... we are truly a remarkable species. :)

Remember that good old word "hubris". We don't entirely know what we're doing, but we rush along doing it anyway. That's the kind of species we are. It could all end in tears.

[CapelDodger]

By destroying the environments where such diseases originally flourished, we are artificially affecting our own evolution.
By migrating from our original range we shed a lot of parasites that had evolved to exploit us in that original environment. Many parasites have more than one vector, so leaving the range of any of them stops the disease dead. That affected the evolution of non-Africans, who could lose expensive counter-measures. Central Africa was almost certain death to Europeans before quinine, and pretty damn' likely afterwards. On the other hand, when we started living in close proximity to each other and our livestock we picked up a whole new set of diseases such as flu, which is why Europeans were almost certain death to Americans when they first turned up.

Parasites have played a signficant role in human history. For what it's worth. :)

[CapelDodger]

As I've said I understand from the language point of view what artificial selection means. Before we continue any further let's clarify things: Do you agree that artificial selection is a subset of natural selection?
No, I disagree. Both are subsets of evolution by the selective survival of heritable traits. One selects by ability to breed and is unplanned, the other selects by desired trends and is planned. It's a fairly important point in an environment where ID lurks in the undergrowth, since creationists project natural selection as a subset of artificial selection.

[AtaraX]

Remember that good old word "hubris". We don't entirely know what we're doing, but we rush along doing it anyway. That's the kind of species we are. It could all end in tears.

I wouldn't argue against the possiblity of it all ending in disaster. Us naked chimps seem to be driving the bus faster and faster. Of course we may hit something. But if we do, it won't be because natural selection has changed us, it will be because we will have changed our environment way beyond our ability to adapt to that change.

I mean, global warming, super bug, religious literalism, overpopulation stressing and destroying the biosphere, nuclear weapons, large astroid hitting the Earth, all the cataclysms scenenarios have nothing to do with natural selection.

Natural and sexual selection are happening. Even if "unnatural" selection is widely adopted with 100 year life spans and a population approaching 7 billion it isn't a significant factor.

[CapelDodger]

I wouldn't argue against the possiblity of it all ending in disaster. Us naked chimps seem to be driving the bus faster and faster. Of course we may hit something. But if we do, it won't be because natural selection has changed us, it will be because we will have changed our environment way beyond our ability to adapt to that change.
I agree. The environment is liable to get out-of-hand. I doubt our social behaviour has evolved much (if at all) since hunter-gatherer days. We've evolved and diverged physically, but we all seem to play life by much the same rules. The rate we've changed our environment during this interglacial far outstrips the rate of evolution.

Natural and sexual selection are happening. Even if "unnatural" selection is widely adopted with 100 year life spans and a population approaching 7 billion it isn't a significant factor.
That population is set to decline over the next century, and natural selection will play a small part in that. I don't buy the idea that we're going to reach a 9 billion-or-so peak, the system's going to crack before that. The greatest stress is going to be on the most vulnerable, which means people sitting on resources who aren't in a position to defend them. Darfur is, to my mind, a microcosm of what's to come.

[.13.]

So we have a real disagreement. Atleast there's more to argue than just semantics :)

No, I disagree. Both are subsets of evolution by the selective survival of heritable traits. One selects by ability to breed and is unplanned, the other selects by desired trends and is planned. It's a fairly important point in an environment where ID lurks in the undergrowth, since creationists project natural selection as a subset of artificial selection.

Look at the sentence again. The result of the application of intelligence to breeding is artificial selection, just as the result of the application of intelligence to smelting is artificial geology. The application of intelligence is perfectly natural.

In the environment of natural selection none of the competing species has a plan. That's what distinguishes it from artificial selection, which does have a plan. The plan is to breed something with certain desirable qualities - more tractable, more productive, more robust, whatever, more for less, basically. If there's a plan in the natural world it amounts to no more than getting another generation out on the table for another spin of the wheel.

The ability to plan ahead is a major survival benefit that has come about through natural selection. That is one of the ways our species has adapted to our environment.

Our ability is unprecedented in nature. No other surviving species comes even close. Maybe that difference to other species makes selective breeding look like non-natural. But consider a situation where two species with similar (or even greater) abilities to ours compete over the same ecological niche. Isn't that natural selection at its finest?


I strongly suspect that the title intended to convey "natural selection" in the commonly understood sense.

If humanity gets hit by a nasty global epidemic. natural selection will kick in. Unless it's universally terminal, of course, which would make it so remarkable that I'd spend my last breath abusing the researchers that created it. If some group launches a scheme of selective human breeding towards some goal, that will be artficial selection and not, I think, what the thread is about.

I don't know what the title intended to convey. But using the commonly understood meanings makes the discussion less interesting. I mean if we define selective breeding as non-natural then the answer to the question is 'yes' by definition. So, in my opinion, the question in our discussion is whether selective breeding is natural or non-natural.


Is it in the nature of Hom Sap, product of natural selection, to conceive of and employ eugenics? The evidence says yes.

I'm getting mixed messages. On the other hand you seem to say that eugenics is in the nature of Homo Sapiens but elsewhere you seem to say eugenics is non-natural.

[drkitten]

Our ability is unprecedented in nature. No other surviving species comes even close. Maybe that difference to other species makes selective breeding look like non-natural. But consider a situation where two species with similar (or even greater) abilities to ours compete over the same ecological niche. Isn't that natural selection at its finest?

No.

You're getting confused by the idea that any "selection" that is somehow "natural" must be "natural selection."

Language doesn't work that way. "Natural selection" is a term of art among biologists and refers specifically to non-goal-directed evolution.

"Artificial selection," by contrast, is goal-directed.

The goal-directed is not a subset of the non-goal-directed.



But using the commonly understood meanings makes the discussion less interesting. I mean if we define selective breeding as non-natural then the answer to the question is 'yes' by definition. So, in my opinion, the question in our discussion is whether selective breeding is natural or non-natural.

What's interesting about Humpty-Dumptyism?

[Z]

The point of the original OP was that it seems as if human science and medicine is overriding the natural selection process - that various weak traits that would ordinarily not survive to reproduce are surviving because our society can keep people alive and breeding past any natural (non-Homan-imposed) limits.

[Darth Rotor]

I can see our society falling apart in the not too distant future by lots of different means, not just asteroids and nuclear bombs.

Famine, disease, climate change, conventional warfare all have the potential to stress the infrastucture supporting our unprecedented population beyond its capacity to cope.

To take one example:
Imagine what happens if the worst case scenarios of Global Warming eventuate. There would be hundreds of millions of people displaced all over the world. How could any economy survive a refugee crisis like that? Who would be able to feed themselves? Who would survive to raise children? Would indeed the smaller brained scavengers(sorry can't remember who brought up that point) have a distinct advantage?

This all sounds a bit alarmist I'll admit, but assuming interplanetary colonies and universal genetic engineering seems far less likely to me than a simple over stretching of our resources resulting in a massive population collapse.

So no, I don't believe humans have outgrown natural selection.
Two points, the OP first, and the "parasite killing the host" second.

Until microbes and viruses stop evolving and adapting, humans need to keep evolving and adapting, or what happened to the American Chestnut tree can potentially happen to the human race.

War, in your neo-Malthusian global warming scenario, is a well recognized natural behavior of humans in response to population pressues and conflict over resource allocation. I don't see much hope for the geneticists locating a war gene (probably right next to the gay gene) and doing anything to mitigate that. It may be most natural that a massive war take place, and whoever is left picks up such pieces as are scattered about and starts all over again . . . this time, without Hillary Duff or the Disney Channel.

DR

[CapelDodger]

The point of the original OP was that it seems as if human science and medicine is overriding the natural selection process - that various weak traits that would ordinarily not survive to reproduce are surviving because our society can keep people alive and breeding past any natural (non-Homan-imposed) limits.
I've been wearing glasses since I was eight and the advantages I've exploited have all depended on reading, so I appreciate your point. I'd not have been worth breeding with (not that I have bred, as it happens) in a society without glasses. No aristocratic background worth marrying into, no material inheritance, just a half-blind individual trying to earn each day's crust.

We now know how inheritance works, and can even monitor it. We can select the embryos that will be allowed to mature and reject others, just as the human reproductive system does but rationally rather than by ... instinct, for want of a better word.

I don't expect those abilities will be lost during the troublous times to come, but I'm not going to put any money on it. (When some sort of calamity is inevitable get out of the market, cash up and hunker down. Go back in when things are more settled :) .) I do expect eugenics to lose its bad name - perhaps via a new name.

[CapelDodger]

Until microbes and viruses stop evolving and adapting, humans need to keep evolving and adapting, or what happened to the American Chestnut tree can potentially happen to the human race.
True, but in the developed world diseases are evolving to counter antibiotics and such rather than evolved human defenses. In the developed world disease is not a significant selectve pressure.

War, in your neo-Malthusian global warming scenario, is a well recognized natural behavior of humans in response to population pressues and conflict over resource allocation. I don't see much hope for the geneticists locating a war gene (probably right next to the gay gene) and doing anything to mitigate that. It may be most natural that a massive war take place, and whoever is left picks up such pieces as are scattered about and starts all over again . . . this time, without Hillary Duff or the Disney Channel.

DR
If geneticists did recognise "war genes" it wouldn't matter in the slightest unless and until those genes were selected out of the population. War itself has not yet done that, even though it's been removing war-oriented young males from the gene-pool for ever. Here we are, 21stCE, centuries after the Enlightenment, and what are the big issues for humanity? Guns and gods.

[Z]

Probably because the Guns and Gods crowd breed like friggin' rabbits...