Thread: Evolution in 100 years?

natural selection does not exist in humanity. We try to keep everyone alive and let everyone reproudce because it is a "human right". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that but by doing that we are screwing up our gene pool. Although in a way there is some nautral selection because many diseases like MS and stuff and many retarded people simply don't have kids (for many reasons). So this is definitely a way of natural selection. But other than that if your an idiot or a fat ass you live long to reproduce.

So about the only way we could evolve is to kill everyone who doesn't graduate high school. Other than we have no evolutionary preasures. We don't haveany laws which state that if you have a inheritable disease like diabetes than you aren't alowed to have kids...for obvious reasons. But that also means that there is no natural selection....with germs on the other hand we are killin millions due to antibiotics and sanitizers so all that needs ot happen is for one geerm to appear that doesnt die and he can just keep reporudcing becasue there is no "predators" for him while all the other germs are dying from chemicals.

Originally Posted by aceofspades

natural selection does not exist in humanity. We try to keep everyone alive and let everyone reproudce because it is a "human right". I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that but by doing that we are screwing up our gene pool. Although in a way there is some nautral selection because many diseases like MS and stuff and many retarded people simply don't have kids (for many reasons). So this is definitely a way of natural selection. But other than that if your an idiot or a fat ass you live long to reproduce.

So about the only way we could evolve is to kill everyone who doesn't graduate high school. Other than we have no evolutionary preasures. We don't haveany laws which state that if you have a inheritable disease like diabetes than you aren't alowed to have kids...for obvious reasons. But that also means that there is no natural selection....with germs on the other hand we are killin millions due to antibiotics and sanitizers so all that needs ot happen is for one geerm to appear that doesnt die and he can just keep reporudcing becasue there is no "predators" for him while all the other germs are dying from chemicals.

Close, but not quite. The whole "kill group X because they aren't good enough" is artificial selection and pretty much is eugenics.

Evolution is still occurring on the human populace, but different pressures are dominating rather than just Natural Selection. It still occurs with regards to certain things like diseases, but overall, due to population size and the mobility of the population, Gene flow is acting as a limiting factor on any potential genetic drift or natural selection. Mutations still occur and propagate within the population, though the degree of selection is reduced due to modern medicine.

It is still there, just not affecting the population as strongly as before.

Originally Posted by Ace of spades

the only way we could evolve is to kill everyone who doesn't graduate high school. Other than we have no evolutionary preasures. We don't haveany laws which state that if you have a inheritable disease like diabetes than you aren't alowed to have kids...for obvious reasons. But that also means that there is no natural selection.

I blame the atheists or the education system for attracting this kind of Mcdonald happy meal puzzle reasoning to dreamviews.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I blame the atheists or the education system for attracting this kind of Mcdonald happy meal puzzle reasoning to dreamviews.

I blame poor education, of which has come from what fundies and creationists have been doing to undermine it for years now.

Intelligent design isn't the problem they don't teach that way in school. Soon as they enter kindergarden and first grade they start turning into this and consumerism.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Intelligent design isn't the problem they don't teach that way in school. Soon as they enter kindergarden and first grade they start turning into this and consumerism.

Now that is a tasty looking baby...

However, I fail to see how a baby burger and consumerism relates to Atheism... so the only real alternative is the poor education system.

To be serious for a moment you can't really inhibit the process by which things exist in nature. Even society as screwed up as it is, cannot stop the natural laws. You only evolve into something if you want to evolve into it. Smart people have a desire to be smart. Dumb people have a desire to get drunk on weekends. Smart people have a desire to help others. Dumb people have a desire to watch television. Smart people have a desire to love animals. Dumb people have a desire to buy lottery tickets. The driving force is what you want. Your DNA is adequate and able to conform to your efforts to achieve something worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

To be serious for a moment you can't really inhibit the process by which things exist in nature. Even society as screwed up as it is, cannot stop the natural laws. You only evolve into something if you want to evolve into it. Smart people have a desire to be smart. Dumb people have a desire to get drunk on weekends. Smart people have a desire to help others. Dumb people have a desire to watch television. Smart people have a desire to love animals. Dumb people have a desire to buy lottery tickets. The driving force is what you want. Your DNA is adequate and able to conform to your efforts to achieve something worthwhile.

You don't manipulate your DNA by thought though . Evolution is a natural process, not a process instigated by conscious thought and behaviour.

You don't manipulate your DNA by thought

Prove it. It's easy to demonstrate otherwise. DNA makes your existence and if you decide to learn guitar and become proficient at it, your DNA will have encoded that ability that you took the effort to learn.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Prove it. It's easy to demonstrate otherwise. DNA makes your existence and if you decide to learn guitar and become proficient at it, your DNA will have encoded that ability that you took the effort to learn.

Umm, you were making the claim in the first place, I was simply saying "Hey, wait a minute". If you want me to go into the mechanics of protein synthesis, and then how brains work, before pointing out how the latter can't directly affect the former, you have to give me something to disprove in the first place. You can't ask me to prove you wrong if you don't provide your own proof for your argument.

Are you blind read what you quoted. It makes more sense than anything you decided was real.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Are you blind read what you quoted. It makes more sense than anything you decided was real.

Err no. Where is the proof for your claim? Let me highlight you what DNA does:

DNA -> RNA strands -> Proteins -> Enzymes or Structural molecules, etc.

DNA is nothing but a store of nucleotides which 'code' for RNA strands, which are in turn used in Protein Synthesis. There is nothing to suggest memories or behaviours are directly imprinted onto DNA by mere thought.

What you need to look up is Neuroscience.

A couple of relevant articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...ce&oref=slogin

The emerging lists of selected human genes may open new insights into the interactions between history and genetics. “If we ask what are the most important evolutionary events of the last 5,000 years, they are cultural, like the spread of agriculture, or extinctions of populations through war or disease,” said Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford. These cultural events are likely to have left deep marks in the human genome.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-evolving.html
You'll find a link to the study under the article, but the gist is that statistical analysis of the human genome shows positive selection occurring at more than ten times the rate exhibited in humans' and chimps' common ancestors. Raw population growth is one factor, but the data suggests that our increasingly elaborate civilization exerts more selection pressure on the species than wilderness, not less.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

A couple of relevant articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...ce&oref=slogin

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...-evolving.html
You'll find a link to the study under the article, but the gist is that statistical analysis of the human genome shows positive selection occurring at more than ten times the rate exhibited in humans' and chimps' common ancestors. Raw population growth is one factor, but the data suggests that our increasingly elaborate civilization exerts more selection pressure on the species than wilderness, not less.

Awesome find there, Taosaur. Reading up as we speak...

Where is the proof for your claim?

It's not a claim common sense tells us that choosing to learn something new, a sport whatever, increases your talent in that area with consistent practice and effort. If it wasn't possible you wouldn't be able to choose your education.

DNA -> RNA strands -> Proteins -> Enzymes or Structural molecules, etc.

So?

DNA is nothing but a store of nucleotides which 'code' for RNA strands, which are in turn used in Protein Synthesis.

Nucleotides are said to be organic compounds that consist of three joined structures: a nitrogenous base, a sugar, and a phosphate group.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A nucleotide is composed of a ring of nitrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms, a five carbon sugar (together referred to as a nucleoside) and one phosphate group

But the workings of DNA is more complex than just the result of what you can see manifested in the physical elements when it arranges and expresses. Everything begins with energy and thought is an energy.

There is nothing to suggest memories or behaviours are directly imprinted onto DNA by mere thought.

DNA is the structure of your being. Everything that you are is within DNA. It's not just a pretty pattern or a decoration that you look at which mutates and encodes for it's own fun without you. When you study the nature of DNA you study you and your identity as a self. That identity is correlated especially and particularly to your thoughts and decisions.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

It's not a claim common sense tells us that choosing to learn something new, a sport whatever, increases your talent in that area with consistent practice and effort. If it wasn't possible you wouldn't be able to choose your education.

That is mental development, not the development of your DNA. The neural paths responsible for motor skills become more refined with practice for whatever sport, whilst for let's say... maths, the neural paths responsible for doing such calculus improve in terms of complexity and efficiency for different mathematical equations. Note, it is not the DNA that changes.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

So?

Ok, again so what?

If you actually paid attention in those Biology classes, you'd remember that DNA only deals with Protein synthesis directly by coding for the different RNA strands responsible for the production of X protein. It does not get affected by mental thought processes!

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

DNA is the structure of your being. Everything that you are, is within DNA. It's not just a pretty pattern or a decoration that you look at. When you study DNA you study you, your identity as a self.

DNA is what forms your body, not your mind. For studying self, you look towards the mind and the vast network of neurons that is the brain. For body chemistry and the processes that govern individual cells, DNA is what you look at, along with all the other organelles within a cell.

Learn a Biology textbook... please. Also, no citation from you yet for your claim.

Minervas never has anything coherent, logical, or intelligent to say.

But that's okay because she always wins in her mind

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Awesome find there, Taosaur. Reading up as we speak...

Actually Xaquaria dropped the NYTimes article in this thread: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=57359, from which I also self-quoted my abstract of the study from the Wired article (which Moonbeam and I discussed at length in a thread from last year).

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Minervas never has anything coherent, logical, or intelligent to say.

Coming from you that is a compliment. Your idea of sensible is frankly upside down. Upside down, upside down, Hurrrry uuuppp.

That is mental development, not the development of your DNA.

Your DNA is not separate from your mental functions. How do you think your arm moves and picks up a coffee cup. It didn't mutate the kettle on.

The neural paths responsible for motor skills become more refined with practice

The neural paths didn't start improving by themself we cause ourself to improve and decided that we wanted to become skilled.

complexity and efficiency for different mathematical equations. Note, it is not the DNA that changes.

Neural paths are connected to the body and the body is connected to DNA. The DNA would contain data of itself even if you do not understand or see how it correlates. Your assumption that you know everything is fascinatingly restricting to your ability to see the obvious.

DNA only deals with Protein synthesis directly by coding for the different RNA strands responsible for the production of X protein. It does not get affected by mental thought processes!

We know on a mundane and quite frankly useless level that what is called a protein synthesis is a theory for some DNA encodement. But this doesn't warrant it a sensible idea to jump to the conclusion there is no connection between your DNA and what you end up thinking and deciding.

DNA is what forms your body, not your mind.

If you had no mind your body would die. Despite this you think mind has no relation to your body and no relation to your DNA. Yet if the mind can give orders to the body it can give orders to the DNA.

For studying self, you look towards the mind and the vast network of neurons that is the brain. For body chemistry and the processes that govern individual cells, DNA is what you look at, along with all the other organelles within a cell.

You don't look solely at the neurons in the brain alone. That is only one aspect of the function of your entire body. If you want to study a computer you don't just look at the monitor you have to look at all parts connected with it to get the full picture. The heart is actually the center of the magnetic forces which ultimately trigger the neurons. Why do I have more sense than you without a textbook.

Learn a Biology textbook

I'll study a textbook if you choose a goal for yourself other than what is in a textbook. Deal?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Coming from you that is a compliment. Your idea of sensible is frankly upside down. Upside down, upside down, Hurrrry uuuppp.

Some people in this forum are clearly off their meds.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Some people in this forum are clearly off their meds.

This coming from Crazyosaur. And Crazyosaur than Seismosaur.



Taosaur lizard of the way. Sounds like an old country song from when dinosaurs existed.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Your DNA is not separate from your mental functions. How do you think your arm moves and picks up a coffee cup. It didn't mutate the kettle on.

That is to do with motor neurons, not DNA. Fail number one.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

The neural paths didn't start improving by themself we cause ourself to improve and decided that we wanted to become skilled.

They improve just from some sort of activity. DNA does not change though. It remains the same throughout your life. Otherwise, criminals could simply change their lifestyle and 'learn' to be different in order to fool DNA tests.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Neural paths are connected to the body and the body is connected to DNA. The DNA would contain data of itself even if you do not understand or see how it correlates. Your assumption that you know everything is fascinatingly restricting to your ability to see the obvious.

Tu quoque, Minerva. I don't assume to know everything, but this so much happens to be a topic I know quite a bit about. I'm not an expert on history though...

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

We know on a mundane and quite frankly useless level that what is called a protein synthesis is a theory for some DNA encodement. But this doesn't warrant it a sensible idea to jump to the conclusion there is no connection between your DNA and what you end up thinking and deciding.

The links are developmental, not influential. You don't influence your genes to change, and with Protein Synthesis, there's the whole fucking field of Molecular Biology to call on your bullshit. Now where is that elusive proof of yours with regards to your claims?

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

If you had no mind your body would die. Despite this you think mind has no relation to your body and no relation to your DNA. Yet if the mind can give orders to the body it can give orders to the DNA.

Comas, vegetative states, etc. How do you explain them then? Also, more citation needed for comments marked in bold.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

You don't look solely at the neurons in the brain alone. That is only one aspect of the function of your entire body. If you want to study a computer you don't just look at the monitor you have to look at all parts connected with it to get the full picture. The heart is actually the center of the magnetic forces which ultimately trigger the neurons. Why do I have more sense than you without a textbook.

... Seriously... Proof or STFU

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

I'll study a textbook if you choose a goal for yourself other than what is in a textbook. Deal?

Because with education, the more likely I am to earn a big fat wad of cash for a salary.

I think that is incentive enough, don't you think? Not to mention you could actually, you know, contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

motor neurons