Darwinism and human life

[Raptor]

Do you think that the existence of humans disproves Darwinism? With our medical capabilities, we are no longer governed by survival of the fittest, and thereby disproving Darwin's theory?
One could conversely argue that Darwinism does not apply to us personally but more economically. Survival of the fittest health systems and governments, which ultimately dictates average mortality age.
Was just something I thought of.
Opinions?

[1e-]

WTF?? I don't even know where to begin. You're assuming humans are "the fittest." Viruses, man... microbes and the shit you can't see that out number us gazillions:1 - man can be wiped out very quickly. I guess I should be asking what you mean specifically when you say "Darwinism."

[LiquidIce]

Do you think that the existence of humans disproves Darwinism? With our medical capabilities, we are no longer governed by survival of the fittest, and thereby disproving Darwin's theory?
One could conversely argue that Darwinism does not apply to us personally but more economically. Survival of the fittest health systems and governments, which ultimately dictates average mortality age.
Was just something I thought of.
Opinions?

You're misdefining fittest and strongest. Yes, people aren't the most durable organism. Nor are they the strongest. However, they are fittest, meanest, most badass motherfuckers on this planet. Our adaptation > other organisms.

Fitness is not synonymous to strength or endurance, it's how well an organism can survive and humans are the best.

[Raptor]

Yeah, I guess I more mean the way it applies to animals. For example: Fat people arnt fit, but they are alive. When wild animals get fat, they get slow, and die, because they are eaten by the fitter animals. In the case of humans, people who are disabled or obese, who would otherwise die in the wild, can be supported. Even with what you said about viruses. Countries become quarantined, vaccines are made, and the virus no longer has effect.

[1e-]

Fitness is not synonymous to strength or endurance, it's how well an organism can survive and humans are the best.

You really believe that? Based on what? Brain size and environmental manipulation? It doesn't mean shit when you're out numbered by some badass tiny killers that far outnumber us and have the ability to mutate and circumvent our immune systems. We don't have a cure for the common cold/flu virus for christs sake, let alone HIV, Hunta, Ebola, etc, etc... Humans can be eradicated from the face of the Earth in a few years by these viruses. By the way, Viruses are older than man.

[hellspawn]

Adaption and progress no longer apply to the human organism. Evolution has stopped for us, the moment that our environment adapted to us and not the other way around set it in stone. It's an out-dated concept for humans, but because we will not improve it spells our ultimate doom as a species.

[LiquidIce]

You really believe that? Based on what? Brain size and environmental manipulation? It doesn't mean shit when you're out numbered by some badass tiny killers that far outnumber us and have the ability to mutate and circumvent our immune systems. We don't have a cure for the common cold/flu virus for christs sake, let alone HIV, Hunta, Ebola, etc, etc... Humans can be eradicated from the face of the Earth in a few years by these viruses. By the way, Viruses are older than man.

Based on the fucking fact that there are over 6 bln of us, we now are able to shape the environment to our will, and we have created structures that let "the weaker" to survive and still benefit the whole population. Yep, we're the best this planet has made, trial and error, a global dominant specie.

You CANNOT bring arguments that only verify your own little theory - the fact that some viruses or microbes can kill a human doesn't mean shit because you have to take into account the whole species, not a single "accident". So far there have been some major epidemics etc. but no superbug to destroy the whole race, that is why I think that human race > others > single human.

Like duh, imagine a world where you take one of your superb viruses and... Whoa, it's only one. What if it gets too hot, or too acidic? Bam, he's a goner.

Also, research in medicine is closer to finding cures for viruses. A real cure, not something to remedy the symptoms and boost our immune systems. Just look at fucking acyclovir.

I don't care that viruses are older than man, look at the fact that despite some fucking awesome viruses the whole of humanity is growing and growing and doesn't give a shit about your little microbes :mad:.

Also, Hellspawn -> it doesn't mean we stopped evolving. Our environment is changing along with science. Skyscrapers, ultrafast tranportation... Thing is what will it bring? Will we become a race of weak little dwarves that can create suns at a whim?

[hellspawn]

Also, Hellspawn -> it doesn't mean we stopped evolving. Our environment is changing along with science. Skyscrapers, ultrafast tranportation... Thing is what will it bring? Will we become a race of weak little dwarves that can create suns at a whim?

Well, what i mean is physical evolution in humans is dead. Our minds, ideas and ingenuity are always expanding and growing and that is why we're on top. But we will lean too much on technology, "deus ex machina" the machines willl become god and when they fail we will fail and be snuffed out. I think the world will become much like "idiocracy" if it keeps up like this.

[Rust]

Adaption and progress no longer apply to the human organism. Evolution has stopped for us, the moment that our environment adapted to us and not the other way around set it in stone. It's an out-dated concept for humans, but because we will not improve it spells our ultimate doom as a species.

Completely wrong.


We are evolving just like other animals. Evolution has not stopped for us. Our environment is also not set in stone.

"Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent
positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we
found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000
years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution
of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent
with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution.
We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the
number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity
at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii)
a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination
rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high
number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees,
and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of highfrequency
linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate
more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency
of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population
growth. We consider human demographic growth to be
linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both
processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent
genetic evolution of our species."

[1] "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution." Hawkes et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full.pdf


[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123062/

[the beat]

There are unexplained evolutionary leaps that 'Darwinism' can't explain, and doesn't even try.

I think that disproves Darwinism.

*Note: before everybody get's their panties in a bunch, I said it disproves Darwinism, not evolution. There is much to evolution that we do not understand.

[Rust]

Well, how about posting some examples then? :rolleyes:

[Irukanji]

Sure theres no "cure" for the common cold or the flu, but thats because theres ways to assist your immune system with fighting it, namely antibiotics. Pneumonia is almost completely eradicated from most of my country, as is polio, and small pox(brought over here ~250 years ago), due to vaccination and quarantine of infected individuals. If we didnt develop the ability to construct a place to house an infectious individual, it could spread and eradicate us. Zombies.

/rant.

Also, humans are more likely to destroy themselves then any other creature, virus, bacteria or organism.

[the beat]

Well, how about posting some examples then? :rolleyes:

A quick Google search found this:

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm

[Rust]

How does utter creationist stupidity and sheer dishonesty disprove "Darwinism" (whatever the hell you mean by that)?

1. Here's an example of the sheer dishonesty in that link. This is the second quote they have there, from Stephen J. Gould, which they are citing as if he were supporting their claim.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

The problem? They completely mangled the quote to support their agenda. This is what he really said:


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is no, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html

Stephen J Gould does not support their ludicrous bullshit. He was talking about the common creationist argument and accepting it as true for the sake of argument. He did not accept it as true in reality and in fact went on to cite a text were he enumerated the reasons why he does not. The creationist response is to mangle this quote to make it seem as if he did agree with them.

Since you're so fond of google, you can do a search for "Quote mine" + any quote there and I'm guessing you'll find similar results: they have taken this quotes completely out of context to support their dishonest agenda. Here's an example of me doing just that with another random quote from that website:

http://www.google.com/search?q=quote+mine+There+is+no+need+to+apologize+ any+longer+for+the+poverty+of+the+fossil+record.+I n+some+ways+it+has+become+almost+unmanageably+rich %2C+and+discovery+is+out-pacing+integration...The+fossil+record+nevertheles s+continues+to+be+composed+mainly+of+gaps.%22

Another:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=quote+mine+Despite+the+bright+promise+-+that+paleontology+provides+a+means+of+%EF%BF%BDse eing%27+evolution%2C+it+has+presented+some+nasty+d ifficulties+for+evolutionists+the+most+notorious+o f+which+is+the+presence+of+%27gaps%27+in+the+fossi l+record.+Evolution+requires+intermediate+forms+be tween+species+and+paleontology+does+not+provide+th em.+The+gaps+must+therefore+be+a+contingent+featur e+of+the+record.%22&btnG=Search


2. Currently having some gaps in the fossil record does not mean there "evolutionary leaps" as you claim. The fossils that fill out the relative small amount of gaps we do have can exist and we just have not been able to find them yet, or the organisms did exist but their remains just weren't preserved as fossils.

Fossilization occurs when the environment permits it. If an organism dies in a way or in an environment that does not support preservation, then we're not going to find a fossil of it. That does not mean that organism didn't exist. Moreover, the majority of Earth hasn't been explored for fossils.

That website and your argument fail miserably. Try again, please.

[the beat]

Okay, calm down.

I didn't really read your post because I really don't care, but I'm sure it was very nice. Because it's early and you seem like you're in a bad mood, have a :).

[Rust]

I'm not in a bad mood. I feel great. It might seem that way though because I try to make my contempt for idiocy, dishonesty and sloppy research known. :)

[the beat]

Well I am definitely guilty of sloppy research... as you just saw.


Actually, more like lazy research. If it was in the afternoon, that may have been a more interactive discussion.

[1e-]

I was clearly confused by the question (noted by the WTF?? at the beginning of my post). Also, too many drugs and very tired. Of course we haven't stopped evolving, just read an article that said we were evolving faster than ever. I'll have to find it and post if anyone cares. Peace.

[1e-]

Like duh, imagine a world where you take one of your superb viruses and... Whoa, it's only one. What if it gets too hot, or too acidic? Bam, he's a goner

Invalid argument. Also applies to humans.

[1e-]

Are humans evolving faster? Findings suggest we are becoming more different, not alike http://www.physorg.com/news116529402.html Im thinking there is one more current than this though.

[LiquidIce]

Invalid argument. Also applies to humans.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
It doesn't mean shit when you're out numbered by some badass tiny killers that far outnumber us

In one post you say that we are outnumbered by superb beings. In my reply I said that as a whole humanity can outlast most anything thanks to various social structures and technology, much better than a single human against millions of viruses in his organism.

Difference is that the survivability of a million germs in a hostile environment is plain chance and statistics. Humans can solve problems, change that hostile environment or adept with the help of technology. Thus I concur that humans, even though having to fight with these little pesky bastards, are supreme, because they are winning the fight.

Also, don't "catch" just one line from my post. Reply to the whole of it, because it's easy to fish for line which could attacked instead of refuting the rest of my arguments.

[harry_hardcore_hoedown]

Do you think that the existence of humans disproves Darwinism? With our medical capabilities, we are no longer governed by survival of the fittest, and thereby disproving Darwin's theory?

1) What the fuck is Darwinism? It looks like you're talking about natural selection - is it so hard to use the right terminology?
2) Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest" - a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, a man who was not Charles Darwin) is the concept that organisms most suited to their environments are most likely to reproduce, thus passing on favourable traits. Advanced medicine just changes our environment.
3) Read a goddamned book.

One could conversely argue that Darwinism does not apply to us personally but more economically.

One could argue whatever the fuck one wanted to argue if one wanted to appear intelligent. One could also argue that your argument was made in 1864.

[Bilbo]

NAH

[hellspawn]

Completely wrong.


We are evolving just like other animals. Evolution has not stopped for us. Our environment is also not set in stone.

"Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent
positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we
found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000
years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution
of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent
with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution.
We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the
number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity
at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii)
a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination
rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high
number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees,
and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of highfrequency
linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate
more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency
of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population
growth. We consider human demographic growth to be
linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both
processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent
genetic evolution of our species."

[1] "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution." Hawkes et al.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full.pdf


[2] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29123062/

So (and pardon my slowness) it appears we're mutating as opposed to evolving or adapting. Is there such a thing as benficial mutation ( as i understand it mutation is cancer and imbreeding things like that). Or am I just arguing semantics?

[Bilbo]

A genetic mutation is a change in the genome of an organism. For example, a base pair in DNA is substituted by another or a base pair is deleted.

That being said, there are beneficial genetic mutations, though most mutations are either in non-coding areas or are maleficial.

It is easier to think of genetic mutation as the basis behind evolution.

[Rust]

So (and pardon my slowness) it appears we're mutating as opposed to evolving or adapting. Is there such a thing as benficial mutation ( as i understand it mutation is cancer and imbreeding things like that). Or am I just arguing semantics?

What does it mean when a species "adapts" or "evolves"? That it went through genetic change and the change persisted because it was (naturally) selected in the population. Mutations are a form of genetic change - the most common one actually. They can be benign/neutral, beneficial or problematic ( it depends on the environment the organism is in) but most are usually benign.

So when you've been speaking of an organism "adapting" or "evolving" you've essentially been speaking of mutations without even knowing it.

Mutations FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

[hellspawn]

So with all of this, doesn't that mean that medical science is a short-term cure to keep us all alive, while totally contaminating the future generations genes? I mean, i've heard all of the natural selection shit (i.e. "take off all the warning labels, for a day and see who survives"), but is there a compromise that can be reached between the two fields? one that will keeps us alive today, but that will not damn our decendents?

[Rust]

Without medicine there wouldn't be any descendents left to be damned.

There is no guarantee that anyone would survive. There is no guarantee that mutation which helps us survive X virus or Y bacteria will happen to a person. Why condemn potentially billions of people on a gamble?

Sure medicine can sometimes be taken to the extreme - like when it's comercialized. Case in point anti-bacterial hand soap for the home - but in general the net value of medicine is very positive.

[rabbit boy]

Without medicine there wouldn't be any descendents left to be damned.

There is no guarantee that anyone would survive. There is no guarantee that mutation which helps us survive X virus or Y bacteria will happen to a person. Why condemn potentially billions of people on a gamble?

Sure medicine can sometimes be taken to the extreme - like when it's comercialized. Case in point anti-bacterial hand soap for the home - but in general the net value of medicine is very positive.

Most likely, a certain percentage of the population would already have the mutation, as is the case with the mutated CCR5 gene and the black death and HIV (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_plague/index.html). Still, with some extreme diseases a large percentage of the population can die, and that's no good.

You didn't answer him though as to whether using medicine was hampering natural selection. You just said the alternative of using no medicine at all would be disastrous.

At the moment we already have the ability to screen for bad genes when doing in vitro fertilization. So if one of the parents has a bad gene, it's possible for them to artificially select for good genes -- it actually sounds a lot more efficient than natural selection. We also have the ability to alter genetic content in adults, although this science is probably still in its infancy. This won't fix passing on the bad genes to your children though unless you fix the gametes (eggs and sperm) in particular. Alternatively, you could always do the in vitro fertilization scanning.

So yeah, my idea is that even though modern medicine may be slowing down the pace of natural selection's ability to knock out harmful mutations, we are developing our own methods of doing it.

[Rust]

Most likely, a certain percentage of the population would already have the mutation, as is the case with the mutated CCR5 gene and the black death and HIV (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previous_seasons/case_plague/index.html). Still, with some extreme diseases a large percentage of the population can die, and that's no good.

A valid point except you also have to consider that those people who do happen to have the immunity for a certain virus could have died from another virus/disease to begin with. To have an immunity to all deadly diseases that medicine protects us from is next to impossible.

You didn't answer him though as to whether using medicine was hampering natural selection. You just said the alternative of using no medicine at all would be disastrous.


I also said that the net effect of medicine was positive. That's what I meant: that medicine is a positive in evolutionary terms.

[rabbit boy]

A valid point except you also have to consider that those people who do happen to have the immunity for a certain virus could have died from another virus/disease to begin with. To have an immunity to all deadly diseases that medicine protects us from is next to impossible.

Yes, that's a good point. Just keep in mind that I was pointing out that if there is going to be immunity developed against something naturally, it's probably going to be a mutation that's already in the population rather than one that pops up spontaneously during the course of the event.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by what you said, though.

I also said that the net effect of medicine was positive. That's what I meant: that medicine is a positive in evolutionary terms.

Hmm...

Okay, I'll buy it. But you still didn't explain in that post why it is positive in evolutionary terms.

One positive thing I can see is that by allowing a greater population, you are allowing a greater diversity in the gene pool, like that one article you posted said.

Still... unless we start dealing with our genetics ourselves like I talked about in my previous post, it seems like we'd become more and more dependent on medicine as more genetic defects pile up from mutations. There are more bad mutations than positive ones, right?

Couldn't it be that with medicine correcting or masking genetic problems and weaknesses, that most of the selection would be for stuff like personality traits and attractiveness?

[rabbit boy]

Hey, while I was looking for an article in Discover magazine, I found this one:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/02-evolution-by-intelligent-design

I thought maybe I was just a crackpot, but now I know I'm not alone :green_tongue:

edit: while I'm at it, I should probably post this as well:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to

It's about the idea that humans have been evolving more rapidly in the past 10,000 years than before. There isn't a consensus on the issue yet, though.

[Valheru]

There are unexplained evolutionary leaps that 'Darwinism' can't explain, and doesn't even try.


[Citation needed]



I think that disproves Darwinism.

*Note: before everybody get's their panties in a bunch, I said it disproves Darwinism, not evolution. There is much to evolution that we do not understand.

What's the difference? Darwinism is evolution without the physical science - still the same thing.

[Rust]

Okay, I'll buy it. But you still didn't explain in that post why it is positive in evolutionary terms.

"Without medicine there wouldn't be any descendents left to be damned."

I may not have explained in depth, but I think it's pretty obvious why the species being able to survie all these years because of medicine is positive in evolutionary terms...



edit: while I'm at it, I should probably post this as well:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar...e-they-used-to

I already posted that article, and the link to the actual article in the PNAS:

http://bbs.zoklet.net/showpost.php?p=167622&postcount=9

:p

[rabbit boy]

"Without medicine there wouldn't be any descendents left to be damned."

I may not have explained in depth, but I think it's pretty obvious why the species being able to survie all these years because of medicine is positive in evolutionary terms...

Sorry, I mispoke. What I meant was the issue of genetic illnesses and susceptibility to diseases and pathogens. It was something that I was curious about.

I already posted that article, and the link to the actual article in the PNAS:

http://bbs.zoklet.net/showpost.php?p=167622&postcount=9

:p

Ah, I didn't look at your MSNBC link. I had looked at the other one, though.

[Soda]

We'll have genetically perfect and cybernetically enhanced people in no time.

[enkrypt0r]

As previous posters have said, fittest does not mean strongest physically. It just means most fit to survive. For some organisms, that means being the strongest, for others it means being the smallest, the most resistant, the smartest, the best able to adapt, the best able to produce/gather food, etc, etc. With humans, this difference is extremely obvious, as being physically fit means less and less. I believe that human emotion plays a huge factor in the spin we put on Darwinism, but Darwin governs us nonetheless.

[Crackpot Pyschologist]

I'm not in a bad mood. I feel great. It might seem that way though because I try to make my contempt for idiocy, dishonesty and sloppy research known. :)

As do I, funny how people tend to think someone's a grouch for arguing a point...there's a difference between pessimism and being realistic

[MissC]

theres far too much for me to read at this time of night but

1) there is a research project into developing antivirals and indeed some have been developed already. For example, countries have stockpiled antiviral medication and preventative treatments against bird-flu after the recent scare.
2) Darwin's theory of evolution is only applicable to living organisms which may be identified by standard systems of classification, the most applicable (and modern) one to Darwin's theories being hierarchical, phylogenetic alpha taxonomy.
Viruses by their very definition are not living organisms, cannot live on their own (without invading cells of living things) and as such do not fit into any system of taxonomy.

Therefore, humans are still "fittest". The only things that may wipe us out, may be wiped out themselves due to their own inability to "evolve" (in this case, it is less evolution and more chance mutation) to match the pace of human development, smallpox being a prime example, and even so, we are still seeking to destroy them using drugs, however futile this may be at the current state. And even so, they do not fit into Darwin's theories as they do not live.

[Centipede2]

So with all of this, doesn't that mean that medical science is a short-term cure to keep us all alive, while totally contaminating the future generations genes?

- On a long enough time span everybody dies - nothing lasts but nothing is lost

- I still don't get how people don't understand fitness and natural selection and they base their whole lives off some pseudo-Darwinian model about angry/selfish apes all fighting in the forest to be the king of the hill. I further don't get why they all drive fucking trucks.

- Medicine has stopped natural selection? Lets assume everybody has 100% access to medicine and all medicine can cure any disease/injury/wound/dismemberment, and we all live to 100. People will still be fucking and killing, idiots who can't drive will kill themselves, non-idiots who get hit by idiots will get killed, there still will be cops, poverty will still exist, nukes and diplomacy will still exist, and the world will die - by our hands or naturally.

- For those whose life philosophy is based around "surviving" as in having kids 'cause "your traits are the best", why? What the fuck do you think you are gaining? Reincarnation in 1000 years? A personal monument to you? You think your flavor of cancer is what the world needs?

[xXBassmanXx]

even with our capacity to influence the environment, we are still affected, darwins original theory is that mutations which are naturally unhelpful to survival in an environment will reduce the chance of that particular organism to reproduce, hence lowering the chance of that mutation being found in the gene pool later. So it could be said that the modern world is our hostile environment and genetic mutations may still be found to be unhelpful and these will still reduce the chance of reproduction.

for example, people with serious mental disorders, like autism, or other forms of retardation are clearly less likely to be able to reproduce (not physically, but who wants to sleep with a retard?). The same can be inferred for people who have physical anomilies.

more frequently used for example of darwins theory of natural selection is an organism dieing, hence its genetic material being removed from the proverbial pool. In classic examples, moths which have mutated to have a bright color are less camoflagued in the forest, so they are eaten by frogs before they have the cance to spread thier genetic material. This sort of darwanism is rarely seen in modern human society, but similar examples of purging weak links can be seen on rare occasions.
e.g. people dying from heat waves, retards who think they can fly jumping off roofs, and emos killing themselves. All of thse people clearly have at least slightly defficient genes, and in all cases, these genetic weaknesses have caused their own demise.

in conclusion, i dont think that darwanism, or natural selection is absent in modern society, but it has taken on a form which is far less brutal than it is traditionaly viewed as from eons past.

-MC out:)

[MissC]

for example, people with serious mental disorders, like autism, or other forms of retardation are clearly less likely to be able to reproduce (not physically, but who wants to sleep with a retard?). The same can be inferred for people who have physical anomilies.

e.g. people dying from heat waves, retards who think they can fly jumping off roofs, and emos killing themselves. All of thse people clearly have at least slightly defficient genes, and in all cases, these genetic weaknesses have caused their own demise.


:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

THERES SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS POST, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN :mad:

[ccpt]

Darwinism is still valid and completely factual. Simply because we are still breeding with genetically weaker individuals thanks to medicine preventing them from dying before they can mate does not mean evolution is not still at work - it just means we're maintaining a presence of inferior or problematic alleles in our gene pool.

If we stopped administering medications and treatments and people died younger, Darwinism comes back into play. Our technology has made us capable of socially transcending "survival of the fittest" to some extent, but humanity as a whole has not transcended it, because plenty of people in third world nations are still dying at young ages, before they can grant their alleles to the next generation; in their instances, the strongest are surviving.

Further, the "fittest" does not only mean "strongest," but most capable of successful reproduction. A very strong individual who is sterile has a fitness level of 0. I'm sorry if anything I've said was redundant, I've not read all posts in this thread.

[ccpt]

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: :mad::mad::mad:

THERES SO MANY THINGS WRONG WITH THIS POST, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN :mad:

Um... what they said makes absolute sense and is valid. What's wrong with it?

[Clarphimous]

theres far too much for me to read at this time of night but

1) there is a research project into developing antivirals and indeed some have been developed already. For example, countries have stockpiled antiviral medication and preventative treatments against bird-flu after the recent scare.
2) Darwin's theory of evolution is only applicable to living organisms which may be identified by standard systems of classification, the most applicable (and modern) one to Darwin's theories being hierarchical, phylogenetic alpha taxonomy.
Viruses by their very definition are not living organisms, cannot live on their own (without invading cells of living things) and as such do not fit into any system of taxonomy.

Therefore, humans are still "fittest". The only things that may wipe us out, may be wiped out themselves due to their own inability to "evolve" (in this case, it is less evolution and more chance mutation) to match the pace of human development, smallpox being a prime example, and even so, we are still seeking to destroy them using drugs, however futile this may be at the current state. And even so, they do not fit into Darwin's theories as they do not live.

Survival of the fittest says that an organism has more offspring than can survive, and those that do reproduce further and pass on their genes, being more "fit." Even if viruses don't completely fit the sexual reproduction model for evolution, selection still applies.

The definition of viruses as non-living or living is not a clear-cut issue. This is particularly noticeable in large, complex viruses such as Mimivirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimivirus).

I don't think claiming a certain species is most "fit" is a good way to think about the subject. It reminds me of those depictions of human being at the pinnacle of a ladder.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/laddervstree.gif

[CMACD]

Didn't read anything past the 1st page. But for the hell of it, here's my prediction on human evolution: The smart, strong, attractive people are using contraceptives & sterilizing themselves. It's the fat, creationist yankees that are having all the children, and in my opinion, it's going to be a sad, sad fucking world in a few thousand years. "well ugly people can still have beautiful children" - you see that now, but over a long term, the minority will be de-selected. I guess a new perception will exist on what is "hot" and "ugly" if it were to ever go that far.