Humans Are Still EVOLVING

[rodsky]

Again, one more word that is OUT OF TOPIC and this thread is kaput, and infractions will be duly handed out.

-RODION

[insect111]

"There is this idea that because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans," said Stephen Stearns of Yale University.


hmmm, why would somebody conclude that "because medicine has been so good at reducing mortality rates, that means that natural selection is no longer operating in humans"? the fact that we need medicine shows that we are not perfect organisms. being imperfect means then that humans are still subject to change, or evolution in other words. i was just wondering who coined the idea that Mr. Stearns quoted in the first place.

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by insect111 the fact that we need medicine shows that we are not perfect organisms. being imperfect means then that humans are still subject to change, or evolution in other words.

Subject to the "usual" processes of evolution only if you remove medicines/drugs out of the picture. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. So Stearn's point is still valid.

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky Subject to the "usual" processes of evolution only if you remove medicines/drugs out of the picture. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. So Stearn's point is still valid. -RODION

i dont get it... youre saying your not for natural selection? so if its still valid how did they conclude that evolution is still happening?

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger i dont get it... youre saying your not for natural selection? so if its still valid how did they conclude that evolution is still happening?

Before I answer this question, I invite anyone reading to watch this video first:

YouTube - Cosmos: "Heike Crabs" to aid in grasping/understanding my point.

In the case of the Heike crabs, humans have "interrupted" natural selection to form the face of the warrior on the carapace of the crab. This is parallel to what we humans are currently doing to ourselves, via medicines/drugs. There is now artificial selection going on. But that doesn't mean that natural selection is still ongoing. In areas where there are no sophisticated medicines or drugs, natural selection among humans is still going on.

So again, it's very simple:

Natural Selection = no human intervention

Artificial Selection = human intervention involved (i.e. breeding of domesticated animals, the Heike crabs, and humans being treated with sophisticated/advanced medicine)

And this is the important part--BOTH natural and artificial selection are still subsets of the process of evolution. It's not an issue of one or the other.

Ergo, cats and dogs you find in your house, wouldn't have existed today, if humans didn't interfere in their breeding process. They have evolved through time, to be what they are now--smaller and mild-tempered versions of their wild cousins (i.e. Ocelots/Lynx and coyotes/hyenas)

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky Before I answer this question, I invite anyone reading to watch this video first: YouTube - Cosmos: "Heike Crabs" to aid in grasping/understanding my point. In the case of the Heike crabs, humans have "interrupted" natural selection to form the face of the warrior on the carapace of the crab. This is parallel to what we humans are currently doing to ourselves, via medicines/drugs. There is now artificial selection going on. But that doesn't mean that natural selection is still ongoing. In areas where there are no sophisticated medicines or drugs, natural selection among humans is still going on. So again, it's very simple: Natural Selection = no human intervention Artificial Selection = human intervention involved (i.e. breeding of domesticated animals, the Heike crabs, and humans being treated with sophisticated/advanced medicine) And this is the important part--BOTH natural and artificial selection are still subsets of the process of evolution. It's not an issue of one or the other. Ergo, cats and dogs you find in your house, wouldn't have existed today, if humans didn't interfere in their breeding process. They have evolved through time, to be what they are now--smaller and mild-tempered versions of their wild cousins (i.e. Ocelots/Lynx and coyotes/hyenas) -RODION

i still dont buy human evolution... humans are still the same thousand years back... if we take immunization from viruses as an example, then nope its just weeding of weaker viruses... temperament among animals is not an evolution. it can be taught just as we did with domesticated lions...

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger i still dont buy human evolution... humans are still the same thousand years back... if we take immunization from viruses as an example, then nope its just weeding of weaker viruses... temperament among animals is not an evolution. it can be taught just as we did with domesticated lions...

A human-like face on the back of a crab is not just a temperament alteration, it's a physical alteration.

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky A human-like face on the back of a crab is not just a temperament alteration, it's a physical alteration. -RODION

that was not an alteration but rather a weeding of crabs that dont resemble a human face... still not an evolution. more please.

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger that was not an alteration but rather a weeding of crabs that dont resemble a human face... still not an evolution. more please.

The "weeding" that you speak of is in fact artificial selection, which is a subset of evolution, so I don't get it why you insist that it's not evolution. Didn't you listen to what Sagan was saying in the video?

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky The "weeding" that you speak of is in fact artificial selection, which is a subset of evolution, so I don't get it why you insist that it's not evolution. Didn't you listen to what Sagan was saying in the video? -RODION

evolution for me is acquiring new traits... so i dont need that subset theory... they were there in the first place so why would you consider it an evolution?

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger evolution for me is acquiring new traits... so i dont need that subset theory... they were there in the first place so why would you consider it an evolution?

You may not need it, but it doesn't change a thing--it makes sense, and those that agree that it makes sense (i.e. the rest of us) accept it as a valid argument. The way the world works right now is in accordance to those very things mentioned by Sagan in the video. In fact, Genetic Engineering wouldn't work if evolution was incorrect. But genetic engineering is fact--it's being done as we speak, and thus evolution is fact.

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky You may not need it, but it doesn't change a thing--it makes sense, and those that agree that it makes sense (i.e. the rest of us) accept it as a valid argument. The way the world works right now is in accordance to those very things mentioned by Sagan in the video. In fact, Genetic Engineering wouldn't work if evolution was incorrect. But genetic engineering is fact--it's being done as we speak, and thus evolution is fact. -RODION

Simple, genetic engineering is not evolution... they are trying to enhance or perhaps isolate the trait we already posses. its just a mere mutation for some. crabs are still crabs and humans will continue to be humans.

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger its just a mere mutation for some.

If you accept that mutation is a fact, then you just have unwittingly acknowledged that evolution is a possibility.

"Mutations are the raw materials of evolution."
Mutation and Evolution

And who said anything about changing crabs to humans?

-RODION

[Ger]

Quote: Originally Posted by rodsky If you accept that mutation is a fact, then you just have unwittingly acknowledged that evolution is a possibility. "Mutations are the raw materials of evolution." Mutation and Evolution And who said anything about changing crabs to humans? -RODION

i was referring to mutation like that of humans like family of hunchbacks, dwarfism, etc... of course they are humans still. and if i may, id like to rephrase that... NOT MUTATION but freak disturbance.

[rodsky]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ger i was referring to mutation like that of humans like family of hunchbacks, dwarfism, etc... of course they are humans still. and if i may, id like to rephrase that... NOT MUTATION.

I fail to see who's is arguing that hunchbanks, dwarfism, etc, are NOT humans?

When we present an argument, we lay down clear lines of explanation by tracing what was being discussed previously in earlier threads, with what is being discussed in the current threads (the ones posted just a few minutes ago), and clearly, I cannot seem to understand where your argument about hunchbacks and dwarfs come from, when the issue is about artificial and natural selection, evolution, mutation, and genetic engineering.

And do please explain what you meant by "NOT MUTATION".

-RODION