We have evolved tremendously as a species in just a few hundred years. We became resistant to innumerable pathological species and toxins. However our evolution was not brought about by the selection of beneficial mutations in the human genome--our genome has changed very little if at all in just a few hundred years. Rather, our evolution was established by deliberate action inspired by reason. Our systematic search for knowledge has allowed us to manipulate the natural world to ensure our own survival. The genetic makeup of an individual is increasingly becoming irrelevant to his survival, and single nucleotide mutations appear to have negligible evolutionary value. I think that the paradigm that views natural selection as a law of nature is becoming increasingly untenable. Humans are capable of creating entirely new plants and animals through the techniques of genetic engineering. These recombinant organisms should not be viewed as descendents of preexisting organisms. For example, recombinant strains of rice have been created that combine genetic fragments that code for desirable properties (such as increased yield and resistance to insecticides, herbicides, and flooding) from many different strains of rice. The fact that this sort of genetic amalgamation is possible also helps to explain why scientists have found it very difficult to trace phylogenetic relationships between organisms. This has lead me to believe that the evolution of life may have been catalyzed by direct intervention from God or beings that resemble God. Since human beings can manipulate life in the same way as God, I believe that human beings do resemble God. I think the future will reveal that the unyielding faith in the theory of natural selection by the scientific community is the intellectual fallacy of our time. I want to know what my fellow gamers think about this.
Sure, someone who is mentally retarded might be able to survive, but natural selection still operates because in all likelihood they will not reproduce. This can be said for quite a number of traits.
I thin we're done evolving until that global warming thing starts happening. We'll move underwater and people with webbing between their digits will be the start of our next evolution. :o
Sure, someone who is mentally retarded might be able to survive, but natural selection still operates because in all likelihood they will not reproduce. This can be said for quite a number of traits.coolbeans90
I wanted to keep the OP relatively short so I did not delve into an in depth explanation of natural selection. I would not deny that natural selection does operate to a certain extent on organisms such as bacteria and to a much lesser extent on humans. My argument is not a simpleminded negation of natural selection. For instance, if a collection of microorganism are grown on a medium containing an antibiotic, only the resistant organisms would survive. In this case, evolution results from natural selection of an advantageous gene.
However, evolution does not operate by the same mechanism on humans. For example, suppose two populations have the same genes. One population has the sufficient technology to survive against a microbial pathogen, and the other population does not. In this case, natural selection does not select for a genetic difference between the populations. This indicates that evolution does not require a genetic difference between organisms. This is contrary to the current notion of evolution which suggests that evolution requires the accumulation genetic mutations over a long period of time.
. This has lead me to believe that the evolution of life may have been catalyzed by direct intervention from God or beings that resemble God..paratheos
It's possible, but alternately it could just be natural selection. Or any number of other things - there's absolutely nothing conclusive there to go on.
Modern humans have only been utilising reason for...what, 1.6 million years? Prior to that, life evolved without any human intervention.
Perhaps that means that some other human-like entity influenced the development of species as we do, or perhaps it means that nothing is required for such a thing to occur. The latter seems more likely, and there's no evidence to suggest the former, but knows?
[QUOTE="paratheos"]. For example, suppose two populations have the same genes. One population has the sufficient technology to survive against a microbial pathogen, and the other population does not. In this case, natural selection does not select for a genetic difference between the populations. This indicates that evolution does not require a genetic difference between organisms. thegerg
In this example it is impossible for a selection of genetic difference to even happen, because such a genetic difference doesn't exist. I don't think you fully understand what evolution is. Do you consider technological advancements as evolution? Our ability to make use antibiotics and vaccines is a form of evolution isn't it? If you say otherwise then you are just limiting the definition of evolution. I would define evolution as the ever increasing capacity of a species to endure the external threats to it's survival.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="thegerg"] In this example it is impossible for a selection of genetic difference to even happen, because such a genetic difference doesn't exist. I don't think you fully understand what evolution is. Do you consider technological advancements as evolution? Our ability to make use antibiotics and vaccines is a form of evolution isn't it? Our ability to understand the world around us and produce tools to help us survive certainly are result of evolution. We have had the ability to understand the world throughout recorded history. However, that intellectual ability did not help us during the black plague. It was necessary for us to have discovered the germ theory of disease before we evolved to the extent that we could protect ourselves from the disease.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Our ability to understand the world around us and produce tools to help us survive certainly are result of evolution. We have had the ability to understand the world throughout recorded history. However, that intellectual ability did not help us during the black plague. It was necessary for us to have discovered the germ theory of disease before we evolved to the extent that we could protect ourselves from the disease. So you're saying that our understanding of the world, as it expands, allows us to better survive? I agree. Also, to say that human understanding of the world during the Black Death didn't help us is quite ignorant. The 14th century was a time of great rapid change. You cannot possibly say that we were as evolved in the 14th century as we are now.
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="paratheos"] We have had the ability to understand the world throughout recorded history. However, that intellectual ability did not help us during the black plague. It was necessary for us to have discovered the germ theory of disease before we evolved to the extent that we could protect ourselves from the disease.paratheos
So you're saying that our understanding of the world, as it expands, allows us to better survive? I agree. Also, to say that human understanding of the world during the Black Death didn't help us is quite ignorant. The 14th century was a time of great rapid change. You cannot possibly say that we were as evolved in the 14th century as we are now.
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="thegerg"] So you're saying that our understanding of the world, as it expands, allows us to better survive? I agree. Also, to say that human understanding of the world during the Black Death didn't help us is quite ignorant. The 14th century was a time of great rapid change.coolbeans90
You cannot possibly say that we were as evolved in the 14th century as we are now.
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.
[QUOTE="paratheos"] You cannot possibly say that we were as evolved in the 14th century as we are now.paratheos
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.
You are conflating various concepts.
We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than in the past due to natural selection.
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
coolbeans90
No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.
You are conflating various concepts.
We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than others due to natural selection.
That doesn't make sense. There was no selection. It's not like some people always had the vaccines and other people didn't and those people just died off. Vaccines were invented, not selected for.
[QUOTE="paratheos"] No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.paratheos
You are conflating various concepts.
We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than others due to natural selection.
That doesn't make sense. There was no selection. It's not like some people always had the vaccines and other people didn't and those people just died off. Vaccines were invented, not selected for.
Let me clarify my remarks: Biologically, humans are more capable of handling pathogens and toxins due to natural selection. Vaccines are not a part of the biological process of evolution.
Please, for all that is good in this world, use terminology correctly. You strike me as someone who has a very difficult time communicating with people.
I think what the TC is trying to say is the Human Race has developed technology which is advanced enough to work against the process of natural selection.
Therefore, natural selection plays less of an important role in the evolution of our species than it does in other, less advanced species.
[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="paratheos"] No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.coolbeans90
You are conflating various concepts.We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than others due to natural selection. That doesn't make sense. There was no selection. It's not like some people always had the vaccines and other people didn't and those people just died off. Vaccines were invented, not selected for.Let me clarify my remarks: Biologically, humans are more capable of handling pathogens and toxins due to natural selection. Vaccines are not a part of the biological process of evolution.Please, for all that is good in this world, use terminology correctly. You strike me as someone who has a very difficult time communicating with people. This is what you said: "We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than in the past due to natural selection." You were referring to our resistance to pathogens today as opposed to our resistance in the 14th century. But that was simply not the result of natural selection. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of selection. "Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution." I don't know how to make this any simpler for you to understand. Our increased resistance to pathogens from the 14th century until the 21st century simply did not occur by this mechanism. Vaccines were not selected for, nor did not evolve out of differential reproduction of people who had them. It is undeniable that we have become increasingly resistant during the last 7 centuries and that process did not have anything to do with natural selection. It is clear from the definition that our evolution was not biological.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="paratheos"] That doesn't make sense. There was no selection. It's not like some people always had the vaccines and other people didn't and those people just died off. Vaccines were invented, not selected for.paratheos
Let me clarify my remarks: Biologically, humans are more capable of handling pathogens and toxins due to natural selection. Vaccines are not a part of the biological process of evolution.Please, for all that is good in this world, use terminology correctly. You strike me as someone who has a very difficult time communicating with people. This is what you said: "We are more able to survive against some pathogens and toxins than in the past due to natural selection." You were referring to our resistance to pathogens today as opposed to our resistance in the 14th century. But that was simply not the result of natural selection. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of selection. "Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution." I don't know how to make this any simpler for you to understand. Our increased resistance to pathogens from the 14th century until the 21st century simply did not occur by this mechanism. Vaccines were not selected for, nor did not evolve out of differential reproduction of people who had them. It is undeniable that we have become increasingly resistant during the last 7 centuries and that process did not have anything to do with natural selection. It is clear from the definition that our evolution was not biological.
I was under the impression that you were referring to the human body's ability to fight off pathogens and toxins. Taking into account that you referred to our capacity to mitigate disease through the use of medicine, I clarified my remark.
Evolution, as you use the term, is not consistent with either the scientific nor the colloquial use of the word.
We can see the effects of natural selection due to the dumb stunts people pull that ends up killing themselves. That does help to keep some people alive longer more than others.
I was under the impression that you were referring to the human body's ability to fight off pathogens and toxins. Taking into account that you referred to our capacity to mitigate disease through the use of medicine, I clarified my remark.Evolution, as you use the term, is not consistent with either the scientific nor the colloquial use of the word.coolbeans90
The colloquial definition of evolution is any kind of gradual change. Another definition is "The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form." These definitions make sense intuitively, so I would rather not debate the definition. I think that any reasonable person would consider our increased resistance to disease during the last 7 centuries as evolution. Given our previous discussion, it is clear that natural selection was not responsible for our increased resistance against pathogens. The problem with natural selection is that it is believed to be the "key mechanism of evolution" which is evidently not the case.
Is that just a reactionary response whenever you see someone reflect about evolution?i was just joking around because i read your op and thought you were joking too.
The colloquial definition of evolution is any kind of gradual change. Another definition is "The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form." These definitions make sense intuitively, so I would rather not debate the definition.
I think that any reasonable person would consider our increased resistance to disease during the last 7 centuries as evolution. Given our previous discussion, it is clear that natural selection was not responsible for our increased resistance against pathogens. The problem with natural selection is that it is believed to be the "key mechanism of evolution" which is evidently not the case. paratheos
Within the context of natural selection, the colloquial definition of evolution is clearly the biological process. If the definition made sense intuitively, we would not be having this discussion.
No one considers the drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution" except you. Natural selection is the key mechanism in the process of evolution. You, however, have caused a great deal of confusion in this thread by using the term "evolution" to describe non-biological processes.
Within the context of natural selection, the colloquial definition of evolution is clearly the biological process. If the definition made sense intuitively, we would not be having this discussion. No one considers the drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution" except you. Natural selection is the key mechanism in the process of evolution. You, however, have caused a great deal of confusion in this thread by using the term "evolution" to describe non-biological processes.coolbeans90
I just finished explaining that this is NOT within the context of natural selection. Any sensible individual would define our increased resistance in the last several hundred years as evolution. It is the only word in the English language suitable for the purpose. I don't think you have another. It is difficult to argue with you because you keep moving the goalposts. If i say that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. You would say that evolution only applies within the context of natural selection. This is called circular reasoning.
No one considers the drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution" except you. coolbeans90
If I made a poll asking people whether they consider "drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution"", I guarantee that the majority would say yes. You are simply arguing for a definition that defies intuition in order to validate your preconceived notions.
I just finished explaining that this is NOT within the context of natural selection. Any sensible individual would define our increased resistance in the last several hundred years as evolution. It is the only word in the English language suitable for the purpose. I don't think you have another. It is difficult to argue with you because you keep moving the goalposts. If i say that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. You would say that evolution only applies within the context of natural selection. This is called circular reasoning. If I made a poll asking people whether they consider "drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution"", I guarantee that the majority would say yes. You are simply arguing for a definition that defies intuition in order to validate your preconceived notions.paratheos
Natural selection is mentioned in your opening post. When using the term "evolution" in conjunction with that implies that you are speaking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution I have moved not goalposts; those are the goalposts that your incapacity to express yourself has created.
[QUOTE="paratheos"]I just finished explaining that this is NOT within the context of natural selection. Any sensible individual would define our increased resistance in the last several hundred years as evolution. It is the only word in the English language suitable for the purpose. I don't think you have another. It is difficult to argue with you because you keep moving the goalposts. If i say that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution. You would say that evolution only applies within the context of natural selection. This is called circular reasoning. If I made a poll asking people whether they consider "drug-induced resistance to disease to be "evolution"", I guarantee that the majority would say yes. You are simply arguing for a definition that defies intuition in order to validate your preconceived notions.coolbeans90
Natural selection is mentioned in your opening post. When using the term "evolution" in conjunction with that implies that you are speaking of this: I have moved not goalposts; those are the goalposts that your incapacity to express yourself has created.
Make the poll if you feel so confident.
I told you several times that I'm using the intuitive definition of evolution...and I can't make polls yet. But I am absolutely sure that most people would find your definition limited and pedantic.
I told you several times that I'm using the intuitive definition of evolution...and I can't make polls yet. But I am absolutely sure that most people would find your definition limited and pedantic.paratheos
If it was intuitive, we would not be having this discussion. Taking into consideration that your topic title explicitly mentions natural selection, intuitively speaking, one would likely assume that you are speaking of the biological process associated with natural selection. It would be a bit pedantic if the word wasn't so closely associated with natural selection - but it is. Based upon Frattricide's post, I think I understand what you are trying to say. It seems to be, at least to a fair extent, correct. (though perhaps a bit overstated) However, your ability to express yourself using context-appropriate terminology is nothing less than abysmal.
[QUOTE="paratheos"] You cannot possibly say that we were as evolved in the 14th century as we are now.paratheos
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant. Not really. Genetically we're still as suseptible to new diseases. Cleaner living conditions, as well as medication has gone a long way towards helping us remain healthy. As a species, actually due to things like antibiotics we are less resistant, and more dependent on medication
Animal domestication has also made us more resistant due to the proximity we've had with animals such as cows and pigs, which in the past( thousands of years) has had a big impact on our health. However those are genetic changes( and when it comes to bacteria, genetic changes happen very frequently from generation to generation. I'm pretty sure it takes a lot less genetic change than physical expressions)
Biologically, pretty much, yeah. You seem to conflate various uses of the word.
DivergeUnify
No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant. Not really. Genetically we're still as suseptible to new diseases. Cleaner living conditions, as well as medication has gone a long way towards helping us remain healthy. As a species, actually due to things like antibiotics we are less resistant, and more dependent on medication
He isn't referring to humanity's biological/immune system capacities. It took me a while to figure this out.
[QUOTE="paratheos"]I told you several times that I'm using the intuitive definition of evolution...and I can't make polls yet. But I am absolutely sure that most people would find your definition limited and pedantic.coolbeans90
If it was intuitive, we would not be having this discussion. Taking into consideration that your topic title deals with natural selection, intuitively speaking, one would likely assume that you are speaking of the biological process associated with natural selection. It would be a bit pedantic if the word wasn't so closely associated with natural selection - but it is. Based upon Frattricides post, I think I understand what you are trying to say and it seems to be, at least to a fair extent, correct. (though perhaps a bit overstated) However, your ability to express yourself using context appropriate terminology is nothing less than abysmal.
The ability to express one's self has little consequence on someone who is being intentionally obtuse :)
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="paratheos"] No you're just limiting the definition to suit you. We are more able to survive against pathogens and toxins today than we were in the past. We are necessarily more evolved today than we once were. As a species, we have become more resistant.coolbeans90
Not really. Genetically we're still as suseptible to new diseases. Cleaner living conditions, as well as medication has gone a long way towards helping us remain healthy. As a species, actually due to things like antibiotics we are less resistant, and more dependent on medication
He isn't referring to humanity's biological/immune system capacities. It took me a while to figure this out.
Right ,but going from his first post, humans are directly a result of natural selection. To get to the stage we are now, medically, resulted in under a few hundred-thousand years. Getting us to the stage where we can stack, share, understand, and build upon existing information took hundreds of thousands of years
Saying evolution is an intellectual fallacy is flat out dumb. In fact its just taking for granted being born this smart in my opinion. Sure humans may be beyond natural selection in the near future, with the ability to manipulate our DNA for things like survivability and intelligence, but its still taken millions of years of natural selection to get to this point
The ability to express one's self has little consequence on someone who is being intentionally obtuse :)paratheos
You, sir, used the term "evolution" in a thread regarding natural selection - which has confused quite a number of the posters in this thread. So, for the sake of argument, let us assume that I am playing stupid for the sake of argumentation. You have still failed to convey your point of view clearly to a number of people who have read this thread. Considering that your technical use of language is actually rather proficient, I am surprised that you have this difficulty, but nevertheless, you do. Any word, even multiple words in the absence of a single word, in place of the one you used would have been more appropriate.
[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] Not really. Genetically we're still as suseptible to new diseases. Cleaner living conditions, as well as medication has gone a long way towards helping us remain healthy. As a species, actually due to things like antibiotics we are less resistant, and more dependent on medicationDivergeUnify
He isn't referring to humanity's biological/immune system capacities. It took me a while to figure this out.
Right he's just referring to us as a species overall- which I'm sure we all agree with. But going from his first post, humans are directly a result of natural selection. To get to the stage we are now, medically, resulted in under a few hundred-thousand years. Getting us to the stage where we can stack, share, understand, and build upon existing information took hundreds of thousands of years Recognizing that natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution is an important first step. Another mechanism may be what I would call "Intelligent selection", which is what humans do in order to create recombinant plants and animals. Here is a picture of a genetically engineered housefly with two thoraxes and two sets of wings. This picture demonstrates the type of selection that humans are capable of. This is not a natural fly. This was created entirely in the lab. http://faculty.pnc.edu/pwilkin/ubx.jpg
Natural selection applies to intelligence to human beings. If you commit suicide, you fail to live your journey. If you make a lot of poor decisions, you fail to live life on how you wish to peceive it.
Log in to comment