Turn on thread page Beta

Benefits cause regression of evolution. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    After billions of years of evolution through natural selection, are we the first species to actively reverse evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment? What sort of effect will this have on the human race in the years to come?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    After billions of years of evolution through natural selection, are we the first species to actively reverse evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment? What sort of effect will this have on the human race in the years to come?
    I suggest you brush up on the definition of evolution before applying to vet school.

    FYI: if your definition of "evolution" were to be entertained, we ought to close down all hospitals and sack all doctors. After all medical professionals are "actively reversing evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment" :rolleyes:


    EDIT: good god, you're already at vet school? Go back to Introductory Genetics. Please.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    EDIT: good god, you're already at vet school? Go back to Introductory Genetics. Please.
    My thoughts exactly. :facepalm2:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I suggest you brush up on the definition of evolution before applying to vet school.

    FYI: if your definition of "evolution" were to be entertained, we ought to close down all hospitals and sack all doctors. After all medical professionals are "actively reversing evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment" :rolleyes:


    EDIT: good god, you're already at vet school? Go back to Introductory Genetics. Please.
    As I said, I am talking about evolution by natural selection; positive traits becoming more frequent in a population due to a reproductive advantage of some sort. I therefore maintain that what I said was perfectly legitimate.

    Whilst I am not saying in the slightest that it would a good idea, would it not ultimately be advantageous for the human race if we went through a period of time without aid to those predisposed to certain diseases? Would that not dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits that we are actively keeping 'alive' in our population despite nature's attempts to reduce their frequency?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    As I said, I am talking about evolution by natural selection; positive traits becoming more frequent in a population due to a reproductive advantage of some sort. I therefore maintain that what I said was perfectly legitimate.
    That is biological nonsense.

    Money (or lack thereof) is not a biological trait and therefore cannot be a selection pressure. Nature doesn't "positively select" for those with money, especially given that money is an artificial construct, not a natural one. Whether someone has or hasn't got money isn't the same as whether or not they have beneficial or harmful mutations in their DNA that aid natural selection...it is largely based on circumstances!

    Whilst I am not saying in the slightest that it would a good idea, would it not ultimately be advantageous for the human race if we went through a period of time without aid to those predisposed to certain diseases? Would that not dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits that we are actively keeping 'alive' in our population despite nature's attempts to reduce their frequency?
    Not at all, as I say, you really ought to go back to introductory genetics. And by introductory, I mean GCSE biology.

    It's not as if those of us in the West who AREN'T dying of tuberculosis are doing it because we're BIOLOGICALLY superior...rather we just have more pieces of paper (i.e. money) than people in Africa. That is a complete coincidence. If all the pharmaceutical companies went bust tomorrow, we Westerners would regress to dying of tuberculosis like we did in the 19th century. We're not biologically resistant to tuberculosis!

    It's not a biological trait hence it isn't a part of natural selection.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Erm... whoever survives had the most 'positive' traits by definition, so if the benefits allow or encouraging certain people to reproduce then those people have the most positive traits in terms of increasing numbers of offspring, not necessarily increasing having any offspring over none. More materially wealthy people still pass on their genes, just to fewer children. Society is like an ants nest, we need lots of worker ants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The title of this thread is as hilarious as it is true
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    That is biological nonsense.

    Money (or lack thereof) is not a biological trait and therefore cannot be a selection pressure. Nature doesn't "positively select" for those with money, especially given that money is an artificial construct, not a natural one. Whether someone has or hasn't got money isn't the same as whether or not they have beneficial or harmful mutations in their DNA that aid natural selection...it is largely based on circumstances!
    Okay, so ignore the title which was meant solely to draw peoples' attention to the thread. I am mainly talking about medicinal technologies of modern society.



    (Original post by Democracy)
    Not at all, as I say, you really ought to go back to introductory genetics. And by introductory, I mean GCSE biology.

    It's not as if those of us in the West who AREN'T dying of tuberculosis are doing it because we're BIOLOGICALLY superior...rather we just have more pieces of paper (i.e. money) than people in Africa. That is a complete coincidence. If all the pharmaceutical companies went bust tomorrow, we Westerners would regress to dying of tuberculosis like we did in the 19th century. We're not biologically resistant to tuberculosis!

    It's not a biological trait hence it isn't a part of natural selection.
    I'm not saying this in the slightest. Modern technology has enabled us to keep people alive who would otherwise have a selective disadvantage through a predisposition to a certain disease, and thus pass on their genes to offspring. This surely must increase the frequency of these disadvantageous and harmful genes in the population, relative to a similar population without modern medicinal technology.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Well then your thread title is seriously misleading as it is equating lack of benefits to genetic superiority!

    (Original post by xarcul)
    I'm not saying this in the slightest. Modern technology has enabled us to keep people alive who would otherwise have a selective disadvantage through a predisposition to a certain disease, and thus pass on their genes to offspring. This surely must increase the frequency of these disadvantageous and harmful genes in the population, relative to a similar population without modern medicinal technology.
    Well not really, if you have Huntington's Chorea or Cystic Fibrosis it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, or on benefits or not, you're going to live a shortened (and eventually miserable) life. Modern technology and wealth haven't altered this in the slightest, hence they cannot be considered selection pressures.

    Eugenics is unbelievably pseudoscientific.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Evolution is poor anyway. It's had plenty of time to turn us into a decent race of people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    After billions of years of evolution through natural selection, are we the first species to actively reverse evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment? What sort of effect will this have on the human race in the years to come?
    Couldn't you say the same of modern medicine?

    Why treat the ill, why not leave them to die? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)

    EDIT: good god, you're already at vet school? Go back to Introductory Genetics. Please.
    This, lol!

    Why become a vet, aren't you just preventing evolution? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    After billions of years of evolution through natural selection, are we the first species to actively reverse evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment? What sort of effect will this have on the human race in the years to come?
    Like a reverse social Darwinism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Facepalm
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    As I said, I am talking about evolution by natural selection; positive traits becoming more frequent in a population due to a reproductive advantage of some sort. I therefore maintain that what I said was perfectly legitimate.

    Whilst I am not saying in the slightest that it would a good idea, would it not ultimately be advantageous for the human race if we went through a period of time without aid to those predisposed to certain diseases? Would that not dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits that we are actively keeping 'alive' in our population despite nature's attempts to reduce their frequency?
    erm, we had a few hundred million years (or whatever) to evolve a resistance to all these diseases and failed. What makes you think that doing so now would decrease their frequency?

    Most probably this is because most diseases that affect the western world (dementia, heart disease, stroke, cancer etc etc) occour in older people (say 40+) where they have allready passed on their genes (most people have had any children, if they were going to have children, by the age of 40) thus its not an evolutionary pressure.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Well not really, if you have Huntington's Chorea or Cystic Fibrosis it doesn't matter whether you're rich or poor, or on benefits or not, you're going to live a shortened (and eventually miserable) life. Modern technology and wealth haven't altered this in the slightest, hence they cannot be considered selection pressures.

    Eugenics is unbelievably pseudoscientific.
    Do you seriously think that by quoting two examples of diseases with which modern medicine has failed to provide adequate solutions for, you can claim that it holds true for all diseases?! Of course not!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Couldn't you say the same of modern medicine?

    Why treat the ill, why not leave them to die? :rolleyes:
    Did you even bother to read anything but the first post?
    Thought not. What a waste of time posting.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    I suggest you brush up on the definition of evolution before applying to vet school.

    FYI: if your definition of "evolution" were to be entertained, we ought to close down all hospitals and sack all doctors. After all medical professionals are "actively reversing evolution by helping those who are thriving less well in our modern environment" :rolleyes:


    EDIT: good god, you're already at vet school? Go back to Introductory Genetics. Please.
    Evolution = change.

    Not necessarily biological.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkSenrine)
    Evolution = change.

    Not necessarily biological.
    That's not what evolution by natural selection means :facepalm2:

    (Original post by xarcul)
    Do you seriously think that by quoting two examples of diseases with which modern medicine has failed to provide adequate solutions for, you can claim that it holds true for all diseases?! Of course not!
    No genius, but I did trounce your point that money = genetic (i.e. evolutionary) superiority!

    I reiterate the point I made earlier, the fact that we in the West or those of us with money at any rate have the power to not die due to curable diseases is NOT a selection pressure, it is simply a result of the unequal distribution of economic resources in the world, hence it is not a biological or evolutionary phenomenon.

    What you're essentially saying is that wealthier people are genetically superior than those who are not. That's not how evolution works!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    No genius, but I did trounce your point that money = genetic (i.e. evolutionary) superiority!

    I reiterate the point I made earlier, the fact that we in the West or those of us with money at any rate have the power to not die due to curable diseases is NOT a selection pressure, it is simply a result of the unequal distribution of economic resources in the world, hence it is not a biological or evolutionary phenomenon.

    What you're essentially saying is that wealthier people are genetically superior than those who are not. That's not how evolution works!
    'Money' can only hold true in the sense that it leads to greater medicinal technologies. And then yes, I would argue entirely that money = better medicine = genetic superiority of the population

    The human race has largely surpassed the stage of evolution of physical characteristics. It could be easily argued that it is now the increased cognitive ability of many individuals over time which makes one population of humans superior to another.

    Secondly, by 'reiterating a point you made earlier', you are conceding that my argument was absolutely correct. You can find no flaw in it.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,152

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.