To Evolve or not to Evolve

JollyRoger · 4th August 2006, 08:58 AM

Hypothetical speaking

If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive

Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick.

Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how??

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2006, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Hypothetical speaking

If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive

Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick.

Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how??

"Survival of the fittest" has changed (for 1st world humans at least). Our brains have allowed us to observe evolution as a natural phenomenon. We are no longer slaves to it. Survival has gotten easier so the definition of "the fittest" is less constraining than it used to be and I am quite glad. I have asthma. I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society.

JollyRoger · 4th August 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society.

as would I but looking at the whole picture do you see this effecting our evolution as a species

Cuddles · 4th August 2006, 09:40 AM

The evolution of the species will definately be affected. It's going to be fun finding out exactly how.

Edit : Where do the conspiracies come in to this? Shouldn't it be in the science forum?

JollyRoger · 4th August 2006, 09:45 AM

the conspiracy is who is responsible? and why are they trying to stop evolution??
are they aware of this??? if we evolve a higher level of intelligence what will we find out.

Elizabeth I · 4th August 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I have asthma. I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society.

Maybe not - what about the recent studies that suggest that children raised in super-clean environments from birth are more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory conditions than those in more "natural" surroundings? Perhaps in a hunter-gatherer society you would not have HAD asthma.

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

the conspiracy is who is responsible? and why are they trying to stop evolution??
are they aware of this??? if we evolve a higher level of intelligence what will we find out.

Kindness is responsible.

Why are you so concerned with the evolution of the species anyway? Who cares what the human species is like in 750,000 years?

NobbyNobbs · 4th August 2006, 10:32 AM

Like you said, the defect is often unnoticeable at first. I suspect we are still evolving, but we are not aware for which trait we are evolving. It may not be strength *or* intelligence. Those are not the only two traits to select for.

As far as conspiracy goes, you make a *huge* assumption that the current evolution of the human race is deliberate and designed. Before asking who is responsible, you must first provide proof for this assumption.

JollyRoger · 4th August 2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

Before asking who is responsible, you must first provide proof for this assumption.

now what kind of conspiracy would that be???

KingMerv00 · 4th August 2006, 12:42 PM

I'm not sure if you are serious or not. Just in case you are:

Allowing the "sick and weak" to have children isn't necessarily a bad thing. The more people on earth, the less likely the species will be wiped out in a single plague or natural disaster. Also, it is possible the homo sapiens will evolve to be more altruistic. This would ensure that some part of us lives on, even if it isn't through a direct blood relation. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.

blutoski · 6th August 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Hypothetical speaking

If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive

Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick.

Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how??

Be mindful that this is the centuries-old Galton-style eugenics argument.

I'm also not sure it's a 'conspiracy theory'.

The key critique of this argument is the assumption that humans were brutally competitive until recently. The evidence is that the opposite is probably true. We have remains of A afarensis with bone diseases that would have made them a burden, and they were clearly cared for for many years until they died. Neandertals appear to have children with more injuries than sap sap of the same era. It's most likely that we succeeded because what made us *competitive* was our social capacity to care for the weakest among our clan.

4th August 2006, 08:58 AM	#1
JollyRoger Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buggery's Island Posts: 437	To Evolve or not to Evolve Hypothetical speaking If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick. Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how??
	__________________ The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. Albert Einstein Last edited by JollyRoger; 4th August 2006 at 09:01 AM.

4th August 2006, 09:30 AM	#2
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 7,674	Originally Posted by JollyRoger Hypothetical speaking If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick. Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how?? "Survival of the fittest" has changed (for 1st world humans at least). Our brains have allowed us to observe evolution as a natural phenomenon. We are no longer slaves to it. Survival has gotten easier so the definition of "the fittest" is less constraining than it used to be and I am quite glad. I have asthma. I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

4th August 2006, 09:38 AM	#3
JollyRoger Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buggery's Island Posts: 437	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society. as would I but looking at the whole picture do you see this effecting our evolution as a species
	__________________ The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. Albert Einstein

4th August 2006, 09:40 AM	#4
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 9,624	The evolution of the species will definately be affected. It's going to be fun finding out exactly how. Edit : Where do the conspiracies come in to this? Shouldn't it be in the science forum?
	__________________ ++Rationality Error++ :Unexpected BREAD in C:\Bible\New\Matthew\14.mat line:15-21 Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a ****. - Professor Brian Cox

4th August 2006, 09:45 AM	#5
JollyRoger Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buggery's Island Posts: 437	the conspiracy is who is responsible? and why are they trying to stop evolution?? are they aware of this??? if we evolve a higher level of intelligence what will we find out.
	__________________ The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. Albert Einstein Last edited by JollyRoger; 4th August 2006 at 09:49 AM.

4th August 2006, 09:52 AM	#6
Elizabeth I Olympic Equestrian Wannabe Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Defending the Alamo Posts: 4,639	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I have asthma. I surely would have died out in a hunter-gatherer society. Maybe not - what about the recent studies that suggest that children raised in super-clean environments from birth are more likely to develop asthma and other respiratory conditions than those in more "natural" surroundings? Perhaps in a hunter-gatherer society you would not have HAD asthma.

4th August 2006, 10:23 AM	#7
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 7,674	Originally Posted by JollyRoger the conspiracy is who is responsible? and why are they trying to stop evolution?? are they aware of this??? if we evolve a higher level of intelligence what will we find out. Kindness is responsible. Why are you so concerned with the evolution of the species anyway? Who cares what the human species is like in 750,000 years?
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

4th August 2006, 10:32 AM	#8
NobbyNobbs Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The Mended Drum Posts: 4,975	Like you said, the defect is often unnoticeable at first. I suspect we are still evolving, but we are not aware for which trait we are evolving. It may not be strength or intelligence. Those are not the only two traits to select for. As far as conspiracy goes, you make a huge assumption that the current evolution of the human race is deliberate and designed. Before asking who is responsible, you must first provide proof for this assumption.
	__________________ I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

4th August 2006, 10:38 AM	#9
JollyRoger Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Buggery's Island Posts: 437	Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs Before asking who is responsible, you must first provide proof for this assumption. now what kind of conspiracy would that be???
	__________________ The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. Albert Einstein

4th August 2006, 12:42 PM	#10
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 7,674	I'm not sure if you are serious or not. Just in case you are: Allowing the "sick and weak" to have children isn't necessarily a bad thing. The more people on earth, the less likely the species will be wiped out in a single plague or natural disaster. Also, it is possible the homo sapiens will evolve to be more altruistic. This would ensure that some part of us lives on, even if it isn't through a direct blood relation. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

6th August 2006, 11:25 AM	#11
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158	Originally Posted by JollyRoger Hypothetical speaking If one member of a species is born with a birth defect that allows it to increase its chances of survival, (a larger brain for instance) different that at first seems unnoticeable at first. This birth defect may allow that one member of the species to figure out problems more efficiently(tool making???) to increase its chances for survival and as a result of the larger brain and the effects of it on the that one member it works its way to the alpha position of its species and has first pick with breeding rights, picks only the best and the birth defect is passed on from one generation to the next until present day. Only the strong and the smart had the right to breed, and would insure the survival of the species and allow it to evolve in to some thing better then the last generation. The weak, sick and the old would not breed because they did not or no longer have/have the right to. and may produce offspring that would not be Strong enough to survive Now it’s different everybody in this species breeds, the strong the smart the weak the sick and the old are breeding with each other, instead of the strong producing a member of the species that is stronger and better then those from which it came. This species are producing more strong weak sick who all breed together and make more strong weak and sick. Will the evolution of this species be affected from this and if so how?? Be mindful that this is the centuries-old Galton-style eugenics argument. I'm also not sure it's a 'conspiracy theory'. The key critique of this argument is the assumption that humans were brutally competitive until recently. The evidence is that the opposite is probably true. We have remains of A afarensis with bone diseases that would have made them a burden, and they were clearly cared for for many years until they died. Neandertals appear to have children with more injuries than sap sap of the same era. It's most likely that we succeeded because what made us competitive was our social capacity to care for the weakest among our clan.
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158	__________________ "Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett