Boy, we're really screwing up Darwin

[Chiropteran]

might makes right

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Soon we will stop evolving naturally anyway, and just fiddle with our genes to make us better.

Not if the religious fundies have their way. They will decry us for "playing God" or somesuch.

 

[Babbles]

The sole goal of natural selection is to ensure the fitness of offspring - the ability to produce viable offspring able to reproduce. The use of medications such as the allergies ensure the health of kids therefore their reproductive fitness and success. Therefore using such products fits in perfect with how life is.

Additionally those children with allergies may have other advantageous qualities that are beneficial to society: intelligence, artistic talent, and so forth. Keep in mind that evolution only affects population and not individuals, therefore a diverse population - regardless of perceived weakness like allergies - fits in perfect with how evolutionary theory is commonly understood.

You are seeing only some basic physiological effect (i.e. allergies) and defining natural selection based off that, yet populations have many other qualities besides physiology that would favor certain traits over others.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Not if the religious fundies have their way. They will decry us for "playing God" or somesuch.

Hey, I think we're having a good dicussion here. Let's keep it on track pretty please.

Thanks in advance,
spidey.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: JM Aggie08
totally agreed.



SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST FTW

You realize "surival of the fittest" was not coined from Darwin's theories right?

It is an economic theory, falsely attributed to Darwin.

Darwin was just trying to note and explain a process.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Dumac
You realize "surival of the fittest" was not coined from Darwin's theories right?

It is an economic theory, falsely attributed to Darwin.

Darwin was just trying to note and explain a process.

But would you not agree that mate selection amoung most all animals is based upon the femal selecting the mate who has the best genes? It's quite apparent in all primates (yeah, I'm a primate).

Disgusing, or overlooking this basic fact is detrimental, IMHO.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Dumac
You realize "surival of the fittest" was not coined from Darwin's theories right?

It is an economic theory, falsely attributed to Darwin.

Darwin was just trying to note and explain a process.

But would you not agree that mate selection amoung most all animals is based upon the femal selecting the mate who has the best genes? It's quite apparent in all primates (yeah, I'm a primate).

Disgusing, or overlooking this basic fact is detrimental, IMHO.

I agree that the female chooses the male with the most attractive appeal. This is a theory as to why our hair is spread out how it is, being thoroughly condensed in different areas for males and females.

I wasn't trying to disguise the fact. I was just pointing out that survival of the fittest is not a Darwin quote, even though that is the first idea many attribute to the man.

 

[Martin]

Who do you think is more valuable to the human race: Stephen Hawking, brilliant but hopelessly disabled or spidey07, physically fit but alarmingly retarded?

For humans (mainly those in developed countries), being mentally fit is orders of magnitude more important than being physically fit.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: WW
did you get all your vaccinations growing up?

will you refuse to have your children vaccinated?

only the strong should survive...right?

Another excellent point. Thanks guys for keeping the thread civalized.

Thanks again guys for keeping the discussion civil.

A few things I have to point out:

Allergies are not solely caused by lack of environmental exposure. I was a dirty, dirty boy. I never had allergies until I was about 16, and now without a daily claritin, I'm in misery.

These vaccinations give the body a "hey, we're gonna force your body to devlop some antibodies to fight that which threatens the species" IMHO, this is a good thing. This points back to preservation of the species as a whole.

Your genes, and by virtue of that, evolution, has zero concern for the species. ZERO. Only the individual, and if you really want to get technical, only the genes themselves.

In fact, the entire idea of a species is nothing more than a contrived convenience for us. We label and categorize things, but there is no natural distinction between species. Every individual is a unique organism, and the lines between "species" are not clear cut at all, if you really get down to it.

There is also no such thing as a weak or diluted gene pool. It is what it is. "Survival of the fittest" is also quite a bit off the mark. "Survival of the prolific" is more apt. It doesnt matter how strong, weak or smart you are - selection is based upon how many children you have that have children themselves, and so on...

But that is a really, really good point. From a darwin perspective it is very relative to the point I was trying to make.....where does the line between strength of the body/species battle the will to protect the child?

The line is drawn far on the side of protecting the child. Those who don't protect their children, don't spread their genes. Quite simple as that.

The human brain is not the first time that the paradigm of selection and evolution has changed. For billions of years, the world was unicellular. Then eukaryotes came along, who buddied up with the prokaryotes, sowing the seeds of cooperation. I'm sure if bacteria could, they'd call that cheating. Then multicellular organisms came along...a complete and total change again. Then along comes the brain and intelligence, again creating a new paradigm of fitness and selection.

Every drug, every technological invention, is all an extension of evolution. That can and will not ever change. Even if we were to directly modify our genomes at will, and design babies, it would *still* be a function of natural selection and evolution.

Our immune system is only one line of defense from pathogens. The other, now significantly more important one, is our brains. We should use them, and the products of them, rather than shun them because they are not "natural". They are as natural as anything else we do to protect ourselves, even if it seems otherwise.

 

[hiredgoons]

Originally posted by: BD2003
In fact, the entire idea of a species is nothing more than a contrived convenience for us. We label and categorize things, but there is no natural distinction between species. Every individual is a unique organism, and the lines between "species" are not clear cut at all, if you really get down to it.

You're kidding, right? Species are differentiated by their DNA, which is why only members of the same species can reproduce and create viable offspring.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003
In fact, the entire idea of a species is nothing more than a contrived convenience for us. We label and categorize things, but there is no natural distinction between species. Every individual is a unique organism, and the lines between "species" are not clear cut at all, if you really get down to it.

You're kidding, right? Species are differentiated by their DNA, which is why only members of the same species can reproduce and create viable offspring.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that in reality.

 

[igowerf]

Actually, keeping more people alive means more genetic diversity, so while it might seem unintuitive, it's better in the long run. Allergies are easily treatable, so sacrificing our genetic diversity for allergen resistant kids is a bit short sighted.

 

[hiredgoons]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003
In fact, the entire idea of a species is nothing more than a contrived convenience for us. We label and categorize things, but there is no natural distinction between species. Every individual is a unique organism, and the lines between "species" are not clear cut at all, if you really get down to it.

You're kidding, right? Species are differentiated by their DNA, which is why only members of the same species can reproduce and create viable offspring.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that in reality.

I simplified it a little bit, and that only applies to sexually reproducing organisms (obviously), but what I gave is the biological definition of a species.

 

[spidey07]

I have to go to bed.

I will say that I am extremely impressed with ATOT and the posters in this thread to stay on topic and make some very good points.

It's a tough topic to discuss and I really respect the civility from responders.

Thank you.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003
In fact, the entire idea of a species is nothing more than a contrived convenience for us. We label and categorize things, but there is no natural distinction between species. Every individual is a unique organism, and the lines between "species" are not clear cut at all, if you really get down to it.

You're kidding, right? Species are differentiated by their DNA, which is why only members of the same species can reproduce and create viable offspring.

It's quite a bit more complicated than that in reality.

I simplified it a little bit, and that only applies to sexually reproducing organisms (obviously), but what I gave is the biological definition of a species.

And what I'm trying to tell you, is that the biological definition of a species is not as clear cut as you're making it out to be. The "biological definition" of a species is still a mere convenience. A very, very useful one, but when it comes down to it, it's a man made concept.

Different "species" can mate and have offspring. If they were intrinsically different, this would not be possible. For example, a mule or a liger.

In some cases, it gets even messier: You can have three similar species, geographically separated or isolated. "species" A can mate with "species" B. And B can mate with C. But A can't mate with C. If there was clear cut distinction, this wouldnt make sense.

 

[hiredgoons]

Mules and ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

The universe doesn't revolve around planet Earth, mules, ligers, people, or cults of personality like Darwin.

Either way the human race will be fine, or not, either way the universe will be lol.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Also don't assume because I don't hero worship on Darwin, or anyone for that matter that I presume to know where people came from, we could come from a cup of coffee for all I care, whats important is that we're here lol.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: hiredgoons
Mules and Ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

But not all hybrids are sterile. Those are just the two common ones that came to mind.

You can go on believing what you will, and by and large you won't find much inconsistency with that view in daily life, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the actual genetics involved, its stupendously complex, and lines that seemed solid before, become far more fuzzy.

For you to be alive, there had to be an absolute unbroken chain of reproduction from you all the way back to the beginnings of life. (Lets just ignore lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes for the sake of simplicity). Essentially, one direct reproduction to the next, straight back to our single last common ancestor. If species can only mate with the same species, then that cannot be possible. If we were actually pigeonholed into strict species, then evolution doesn't even make sense. Its the fluidty of genomes and the fact that we ARE all unique that makes it all possible in the first place.

 

[Xyo II]

What does it matter? Eventually with genetic engineering we'll make everyone top-of-the-line anyway.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Xyo II
What does it matter? Eventually with genetic engineering we'll make everyone top-of-the-line anyway.

But there will always be some that are more top of the line than others.

 

[hiredgoons]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons
Mules and Ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

But not all hybrids are sterile. Those are just the two common ones that came to mind.

You can go on believing what you will, and by and large you won't find much inconsistency with that view in daily life, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the actual genetics involved, its stupendously complex, and lines that seemed solid before, become far more fuzzy.

For you to be alive, there had to be an absolute unbroken chain of reproduction from you all the way back to the beginnings of life. (Lets just ignore lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes for the sake of simplicity). Essentially, one direct reproduction to the next, straight back to our single last common ancestor. If species can only mate with the same species, then that cannot be possible. If we were actually pigeonholed into strict species, then evolution doesn't even make sense. Its the fluidty of genomes and the fact that we ARE all unique that makes it all possible in the first place.

I don't know enough about biology to understand how evolution actually creates distinct species, and I agree that the definition I gave is imperfect. The issue I have with your post that I originally quoted is that the inability to interbreed is a natural distinction between species. There may be exceptions, but there are exceptions to pretty much everything except the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Babbles]

I just want to chime in and agree with BD2003 in that the definition of species is not concrete. There has been instances where you have two populations of an organism who will not mate in the wild, however if you were to take them into an artificial environment (e.g. laboratory) then the two different populations will mate. So, how does that define a species? If they are to physically able to mate are they a species even though they would never naturally mate in the wild?
How does one define the ability to interbreed? If organisms can, but won't? Or if they can breed, period? At what point does a cline become a new species.


Also when you try to define species in regards to plants, you get a whole different slew of problems. You can have organisms in one population which may be haploid, diploid, triploidy, or tetraploidy - if you based it on chromosomes and if they can form a zygote, at what point are they different species?

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Babbles
I just want to chime in and agree with BD2003 in that the definition of species is not concrete. There has been instances where you have two populations of an organism who will not mate in the wild, however if you were to take them into an artificial environment (e.g. laboratory) then the two different populations will mate. So, how does that define a species? If they are to physically able to mate are they a species even though they would never naturally mate in the wild?
How does one define the ability to interbreed? If organisms can, but won't? Or if they can breed, period? At what point does a cline become a new species.


Also when you try to define species in regards to plants, you get a whole different slew of problems. You can have organisms in one population which may be haploid, diploid, triploidy, or tetraploidy - if you based it on chromosomes and if they can form a zygote, at what point are they different species?

Ability to breed isn't the only definition between species. It is just one among many.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: hiredgoons

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: hiredgoons
Mules and Ligers are almost always sterile, which is why I said "viable offspring" in my original post.

But not all hybrids are sterile. Those are just the two common ones that came to mind.

You can go on believing what you will, and by and large you won't find much inconsistency with that view in daily life, but when you get down to the nitty gritty of the actual genetics involved, its stupendously complex, and lines that seemed solid before, become far more fuzzy.

For you to be alive, there had to be an absolute unbroken chain of reproduction from you all the way back to the beginnings of life. (Lets just ignore lateral gene transfer between prokaryotes for the sake of simplicity). Essentially, one direct reproduction to the next, straight back to our single last common ancestor. If species can only mate with the same species, then that cannot be possible. If we were actually pigeonholed into strict species, then evolution doesn't even make sense. Its the fluidty of genomes and the fact that we ARE all unique that makes it all possible in the first place.

I don't know enough about biology to understand how evolution actually creates distinct species, and I agree that the definition I gave is imperfect. The issue I have with your post that I originally quoted is that the inability to interbreed is a natural distinction between species. There may be exceptions, but there are exceptions to pretty much everything except the second law of thermodynamics.

If there's an exception, it's not a natural law. The inability to breed can be caused by many factors, only some genetic. We can argue this all day left and right, but evolution does not create absolutely distinct species. It's all relative.

Newtonian physics is similar. Relativity can be thought of as exceptions to it, but in reality, the simplified laws of newtonian classical physics are based upon the deeper framework of relativity.

Ability to breed isn't the only definition between species. It is just one among many.

Precisely. Some definitions work better than others in certain cases. But if youre searching for an absolute genetic or natural basis to it, you're not going to find it.