Thread: Beauty and Evolution

I think it's quite obvious that a key reason must also be that
natural selection the way Darwin observed it is not going to
work on human society. We don't let things run free, it's not
'natural' selection.

We are not in an everyday struggle for survival, not in the
sense of the animal world. We don't let the "weaker links"
die of, we "let them continue to reproduce." Considerably
weaker genes can be compensated, physical fitness alone
isn't much of a factor, etc. Even though there is still an
adaption to our surroundings, the favored treats are
changing faster then we ever could and we live in a
world, in which the surrounding is increasingly adapting
to our wishes. There is less need to mutate and reproduce
any genes.

It's like,.. the apple that's too high for us to reach, we'll get with
a tower crane. And there is more, if you think about it.

Originally Posted by dajo

I think it's quite obvious that a key reason must also be that
natural selection the way Darwin observed it is not going to
work on human society. We don't let things run free, it's not
'natural' selection.

We are not in an everyday struggle for survival, not in the
sense of the animal world. We don't let the "weaker links"
die of, we "let them continue to reproduce." Considerably
weaker genes can be compensated, physical fitness alone
isn't much of a factor, etc. Even though there is still an
adaption to our surroundings, the favored treats are
changing faster then we ever could and we live in a
world, in which the surrounding is increasingly adapting
to our wishes. There is less need to mutate and reproduce
any genes.

It's like,.. the apple that's too high for us to reach, we'll get with
a tower crane. And there is more, if you think about it.

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but the assertion that we're 'not evolving anymore' is not just false, but backwards: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...mans-evolving/

Since the advent of agricultural civilization, positive selection in our genome has increased dramatically. Not only are we not 'outside of nature,' but apparently our hives and warrens are more demanding than the jungles and savannas.

I didn't mean we're not evolving. But we are interfering, aren't we?
I don't think you can just easily project Darwin's natural selection
onto the human species anymore. And the article doesn't suggest
not to take human interference into consideration.

That is not to say that we, our enviroment, our food, everything isn't
constantly changing, even more rapidly, I agree with this... or I knew this.
And we would obviously have to adapt to it, all the more quicky since
our surroundings change increasingly quickly.

But you're right, I somewhat did make the assertion that there is no more
need to, so thank you for the article. I don't think my points were backwards,
but should be interpreted differently and less one-sided than I did.

Quick quote from the article:

"Some of the mutations let us do better. We can eat simple carbohydrates, which hunter-gatherers never did. But we may also be accumulating damaging stuff," said Harpending.

He wondered whether social changes might not cultivate unfortunate tendencies.

"Evolution is a double-edged sword," he said. "What evolution cares about is that I have more offspring. If you can do it by charming and manipulating, and I’m a hardworking farmer that’s going to feed the kids ten years down the road, then you’re going to win. Hit-and-run, irresponsible males are reproducing more. That isn’t good for anyone except those males, but that’s evolution."

Originally Posted by dajo

I didn't mean we're not evolving. But we are interfering, aren't we?
I don't think you can just easily project Darwin's natural selection
onto the human species anymore. And the article doesn't suggest
not to take human interference into consideration.

That is not to say that we, our enviroment, our food, everything isn't
constantly changing, even more rapidly, I agree with this... or I knew this.
And we would obviously have to adapt to it, all the more quicky since
our surroundings change increasingly quickly.

But you're right, I somewhat did make the assertion that there is no more
need to, so thank you for the article. I don't think my points were backwards,
but should be interpreted differently and less one-sided than I did.

We are not interfering and cannot, because we're not outside of nature. If we institute eugenics, splice goats with platypuses and overwhelmingly fuck morons, it's all happening within the context of natural selection. You cannot project a simplistic model of natural selection on the human species, which I agree is where the OP fails, but that doesn't set us apart from any other species. "Survival of the fittest" sums up the principle, but there's no telling how fitness will be tested three, five or fifty generations down the line.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

You cannot project a simplistic model of natural selection on the human species, which I agree is where the OP fails, but that doesn't set us apart from any other species.

That's the key point I wanted to make.

Other than that, thanks for clearing things up. I'll read up on it.