Evolution (or lack thereof)

[yaigi]

I saw this article the other day, I know there will be some strong opinions here about the points raised, so I thought I'd start a discussion. What the heck, I'm bored

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/10297124/Sir-David-Attenborough-Humans-have-stopped-evolving.html

It's a moral minefield isn't it? On the one hand I think yeah, survival of the fittest just doesn't apply anymore really does it, people who would have otherwise died are living long lives and having kids of their own, and the genes which were 'defective' are being kept in the human race. We're becoming dumber, fatter, and subject to more illness (so it would seem anyway). There's a girl in work with spina bifida who talks about having kids and I have to bite my lip - the girl can't even stand for very long, she needs assistance every day herself. The kid would be a born carer, with a high chance of spina bifida themselves, and then what? I think that's really irresponsible of her, but at the same time I think having that thought means I'm going to get struck down with lightening or something because it sounds like a horrible thing to say.

On the other hand I think, well, as much as I agree with the point about us no longer evolving because of medical intervention etc, how much would I be willing to sacrifice in order to stand by this? I mean, if the baby I'm having in November was born with some kind of life threatening defect and I had a choice to save them or not via medical intervention, I know I'd be looking at everything possible to save them. I'm not going to sit back and think 'meh, survival of the fittest kid, you're on your own...'

And the limiting how many kids people can have? I sure know some people who should never have kids... but I sure wouldn't like to be the one to enforce that rule!
____________________
What would you do in life, if you knew you could not fail?
Currently own - Fazer 600, 2000, Red. (But no riding as baby on board atm)

[Raffles]

[yaigi]

[Alice-In-Sunderland]

Intelligence will be the death of us. We're over due a pandemic/meteor strike to kill us off and let the earth start to evolve again.

[Rogerborg]

I'd like the future to be like Star Trek, but in a welfare state, evolution favours Idiocracy.

https://www.sott.net/image/image/165/Idiocracy1.jpg
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

[yaigi]

[Walloper]

No matter what humankind dreams up Mother Nature will ensure it's demise.

Looking after the sick and infirm may be kind and may burden the gene pool but who knows what nature has in store.

We will run out of petrol soon and when that happens I'm out.
____________________
W-ireless A-rtificial L-ifeform L-imited to O-bservation P-eacekeeping and E-fficient R-epair

[Mondeo Man]

Eugenics is a dirty subject- mainly because of the use nazis put it to, etc.

But the fundamental principle of improving, rather than devolving, the human stock, through breeding - is a good thing.

No one dares talk about it today, though.

Plato is really the father of eugenics and he proposed a 'lottery' system where everyone would have a mate picked at random - except it was rigged by the state, and only certain types would be picked to breed.

That probably wouldn't work today.

But I definitely think there should be a system of incentives/disincentives that encourage breeding of the right type of people.

Problem is, how do you define it? Someone could be poor, unemployed - yet with the right opportunity, the next Einstein.

I think the right to breed should be something people somehow have to earn. Certainly shouldn't be allowed to breed if you can't even support yourself. 87% of children are born to parents who are barely evolved beyond apes.

There is no point in these children - they will offer the world nothing except a dumb slave race - which I suppose has its value.

[DrDonnyBrago]

Of course we are evolving, the difference is the selection pressure is different.

Selection of those able to survive long enough to breed will gradually become replaced by selection for traits that encourage more copious breeding. Ultra fertile mattress backs and yoghurt slingers will dominate the gene pool.

However, I suspect that a volatile eugenics movement will take place before that becomes anything more than a peasant (i.e. our) problem.

[Rogerborg]

[Lord Percy]

Yeah evolution can never really stop, but I totally get what Attenborough is saying. The traits we collectively pass on are not at all the ones most vital for real biological survival.

We have everything we need to keep us protected from the elements, and proper physical dexterity is hardly a deciding factor when people choose a mate. It's just about money, fashion, talking the talk, ticking the box, playing the game. Which is fine but there's nothing physical there, just a load of baseless rules defined by idiots for idiots. Plus unequal distribution of wealth, nepotism, globalisation, etc etc etc, all totally muting the proper and necessary physical aspect of evolution. And then there's the over-reliance on health services, which is just a way of biding time for another black death to hit us.

There will always be subtle genetic changes that could be classed as some form of evolution, but sadly, well.... NOFX did a damn good job of putting words to it ten years ago:

[J.M.]

I think it depends on what your definition of evolution is.

I believe we're at a point where natural evolution is coming to an end. We care too much for the weaker humans, so they live on and reproduce rather than dying.

But does that mean that evolution has come to an end? Maybe in the strict definition of the word, yes. However I think that as science progresses, we'll start evolving ourselves. Like turning on manual mode after billions of years of automatic.
____________________
2004 R1 & 2018 XSR900

[Spudly]

I can point to at least one example of natural evolution taking place, more and more people are being born without wisdom teeth.

I saw some research about it once upon a time, but can't find it at the moment.

It's happening, but Attenborough should damn well know it's a pretty slow process.
____________________
The Old Apprentice

[Walloper]

[yaigi]

[J.M.]

[Kickstart]

Hi

Not sure we really know.

Evolution by natural selection would seem to need to take hundreds of generations to have any real positive effect, much less than that the results would probably be over shadowed by natural variation.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[G]

Plenty of species can remain consistent for long periods of time, then be forced to evolve fairly quickly as habitats change.

Human evolution is by nature going to be slow thanks to our fairly long breeding cycles (even with a grandmother at 23, it's still a lot longer than the yearly or quicker some mammals manage.)

On the idiocracy* thing, so far it does seem that it's often nurture rather than nature, though rather hard to really tell. Could well argue that it's still evolution, even if not a genetic one.
Certainly that certain types of people are more likely to procreate more while others are now putting it off for longer does suggest an 'evolution' may be occurring.

*I can't remember the title, but there was a decent-enough book which had a rather similar concept - in this case it was a colony planet which dug out it's FTL ship to see how other planets were doing, eventually ending up on Earth to find it filled with idiots - though in this case there was a 'masterclass' ruling from behind the scenes. A planet they visited (maybe the first?) had gender roles reversed and the main character was 'raped' by a wilful woman.

[Yoyo]

Watch one episode of Jeremy Kyle.

We have stopped evolving. There is your proof.
____________________
Joe: I don't wish to floccinaucinihilipilificate your choices, but the best word in the world is gaylord.

[G]

[Yoyo]

Type 'Jeremy Kyle' into google images. And tell us what is the 6th suggestion down.

https://p.twimg.com/AvxK7RuCEAAULoI.jpg:large

Yep, top end of evolution they are.
____________________
Joe: I don't wish to floccinaucinihilipilificate your choices, but the best word in the world is gaylord.

[trevor saxe-coburg-gotha]

Yes but supposing none of them - and none of their off-spring - die prematurely of cancer, whilst you and your partner - and thus your some/all of your kids do. From one perspective they have the superior genes.
____________________
"Life is a sexually transmitted disease and the mortality rate is one hundred percent."

Mobylette Type 50 ---> Raleigh Grifter ---> Neval Minsk 125

[BumpingUglys]

Yeah but evolution deals in populations, not individuals. Therefore the advantages you, your partner, and people like you have in intellect, should (in theory) outweigh the advantages they have from being chav scum.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that there is some elitist, purifying force driving evolution though, whales have been seen to have the evolutionary remains of back legs, so those bad boys have just evolved right back to where they came from. If nature confers a distinct advantage to sitting on your arse watching Jeremy Kyle then you're gonna see a whole lot more Burberry in a few millennia.

[Rogerborg]

[J.M.]