|
Mankind evolution going backwards?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
According to Darwin's theory, individual animals best suited to their environments live longer and have more children, and so spread their genes through populations. but there is one problem, THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE WESTERN WORLD! Everyone survive in the western world and there is certainly not a relation between smart/best fit/rich/whatever is good and the ones who has the most kids. In many countries there is even the opposite (for example many southern countries of europe), the ones that doesn't succeed in working life get many kids instead. So one could argue that evolution is going backwards...
I figured this out myself while sleeping through a biology lecture, so it could be some flaws in it but i guess it shouldn't, i also asked my teacher about it and he said it was that way... i also guess that i'm not the first one to figure this one out :p and since there seem to be plenty of evolution experts in here i would like to hear more about this :)
So what to do to prevent the fall of mankind, take away the right to get children for people not successful in life? :p |
|
|
| allanon |
| quote: | | So what to do to prevent the fall of mankind, take away the right to get children for people not successful in life? |
:whip: Just don't smoke that and you'll be fine:crazy: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
The problem lies in the confusion between actual evolution and it's perverted brother, Social Darwinism. If you leave evolution alone and allow it to run it's course, then through positive mutations and natural selection the fittest should have the higher probability to spread their genes in a given environment (though that doesn't necessarily equate to living longer lives).
However, when you factor in man-made variables that we alone have self-induced on our own population (through our higher intelligence and creation), then the natural course of evolution becomes more murky. I guess one easy example is how we've shaped the environment around us, and the return effects it has produced (smog, for example). So your premise would be somewhat correct if we were referring to pure evolution alone. But mankind has done wonders in reshaping his environment, unlike any other living organism. |
|
|
| dukes |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
I figured this out myself while sleeping through a biology lecture, so it could be some flaws in it but i guess it shouldn't, i also asked my teacher about it and he said it was that way... i also guess that i'm not the first one to figure this one |
definately not the first :p heheh
but well done for coming up with it yourself:) :D
well for the case of "going backwards" it is hard to say which way we are going as some aspects of human evolution have been getting better while others have been getting worse.
EXAMPLES!! i hear you cry!
life expectancy in the westrn world has increased as a direct relation to women being aloud to work. (i found this really cool by the way) since women are having carears they are having children later. this then passes to the next genoration (not from survival of fittest as there are other ways :P) and the next genoration are fertile for longer into there lives. in turn (cant remember why) this extends the life expectancy. this has been prooved as we have created flys that live 10 times longer than tey should due to delaqying when they reproduce.
i would class that as a good part of our evolution :)
the bad part is simly that over the past 100years the average human brain weight/size has decreased quite significantly!
there are many more examples of good and bad things that are happening but to be realistic i would not agree with anyone on saying we are going backwards as this could only be said if we knew where we should be heading (if you know what i mean). |
|
|
| JudgeJulez |
St Andrew, I'd add people with genetic diseases or disorders such as myopia and diabetes to your 'unsuccessful ppl not having children' question. Up until quite recently in human history, these would certainly have worked in a Darwinian 'survival of the fittest' structure: a person with short-sightedness such as myself would almost certainly walked off a cliff or something and thus not have passed these defective genes onto the next generation. But with corrective lens, this deficiency is cancelled out. Same thing with diabetes: with insulin and such, diabetics can live up to the same age as a non-diabetic. But these recessive genes do get passed onto the next generaion and so on: this too weaken the human race?
I'd definitely say no to enforced eugenics though. Goes against freedom, human rights and what have you. |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
The problem lies in the confusion between actual evolution and it's perverted brother, Social Darwinism. If you leave evolution alone and allow it to run it's course, then through positive mutations and natural selection the fittest should have the higher probability to spread their genes in a given environment (though that doesn't necessarily equate to living longer lives).
However, when you factor in man-made variables that we alone have self-induced on our own population (through our higher intelligence and creation), then the natural course of evolution becomes more murky. I guess one easy example is how we've shaped the environment around us, and the return effects it has produced (smog, for example). So your premise would be somewhat correct if we were referring to pure evolution alone. But mankind has done wonders in reshaping his environment, unlike any other living organism. |
Spot on. I would have said it but it wouldnt have sounded as cool |
|
|
| occrider |
| So for all the christians would it be creationism going backwards? :conf: |
|
|
| tathi |
St_Andrew i think this is an example of a meme
| quote: | | Can one have a ``memetic illness,'' the same way some people have genetic illnesses? What would it look like? Organized religion? |
eg. Religion has imposed certain values onto our culture, monogamy, no sex before marriage etc. From an evolutionary standpoint this may seem like a wierd practice, but if we breed like rabbits and overpopulate the earth and die of famine / disease, where will evolution help us then? God? ;)
In an average middle class family, an only child will receive a better upbringing and education than a family of seven children (generilisation)
This is probably the next evolutionary leap in humankind:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003...8674378878.html
http://www.smh.com.au/media/2003/11...8674381518.html
| quote: | | So for all the christians would it be creationism going backwards? |
in the next 6000 years will the earth disapear? :eek: ;) ( creationists can't go back in time, they already have brains the size of prehistoric sponges ) |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So for all the christians would it be creationism going backwards? :conf: |
God is infallible though, to un-create things would prove fallibility.
touche!
:p
MrS |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Well, if technological development would somehow stop at this point, then the degeneration of the human race would be likely. However, this seems to be just a short phase in human development as genetic treatment of illnesses and defects will soon become available. That is just a step away from upgrading the human race, so I guess in a few generations most people will be something like Stephen Hawking in a Schwarzenegger body. |
|
|
| mentalbarter |
the future for evolution by mentalbarter
considering the increasing equality between the human races with respect to employment, rights and social standing etc., the male of the species is becoming less prominent and perhaps even necessary in the world of today, but especially in the future
also male fertility continues to plummet and in the future will reach levels where only in vitro fertilisation techniques will be sufficient for obtaining pregnancy
thus the male of the species will become increasingly less important until a superspecies of woman evolves or alternatively the 2 species will merge into one and will eventually die out because no viable offspring can be produced
:D
i was bored |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
I guess in a few generations most people will be something like Stephen Hawking in a Schwarzenegger body. |
i cant wait until all of you catch up to me :D
seriously though, in evolutionary terms we've only become more and more intellegent to the point where our technology can 'override' evolution. basicly we'll have the power to evolve how ever we want to |
|
|
|
|
