Evolution: Is this as good as it gets?

[Erroll 80]

From Skynews :-

Quote

Humans are the best they can possibly be and this is as good as it gets.

That is the intriguing message from academics studying the evolution of the universe.

Professor Steve Jones from the University of London said we have already reached utopia.

Through natural selection, mutation and random change, he believed we have got to where we are going.

"In ancient times, half our children would have died by the age of 20. Now, in the Western world, 98% of them are surviving to the age of 21.

"Our life expectancy is now so good that eliminating all accidents and infectious diseases would only raise it by a further two years."

Quote

Natural selection no longer has death as a handy tool.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Humans are the best they can possibly be and this is as good as it gets.

"...so might as well skydive."

At last - validation.

[quade 4]

Actually a good case can be made that we've peaked and are in a slow decline due to artificially keeping people alive that otherwise would have died and not bred. Additionally, we might also be mentally devolving as well since "stupid" people are generally the ones that decide to not use birth control when it's available.

On the bright side, we also seem to be breeding ever more "beautiful" people.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

"stupid" people are generally the ones that decide to not use birth control when it's available.

OK, let's see ... since stupid people tend to have been bred by stupid parents, but we are breeding more beauty queens, then ... nah....

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Actually a good case can be made that we've peaked and are in a slow decline

This statement indicates a complete lack of understanding about evolution and how it works. So too does the title of the thread.
Ignorance seems to love company

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[steveorino 7]

Quote

On the bright side, we also seem to be breeding ever more "beautiful" people.

Really? Been to the DMV lately?

steveOrino

[Erroll 80]

Quote

Ignorance seems to love company

Ahh, but ignorance is bliss.

Arrogance, on the other hand, is quite lonely.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

This statement indicates a complete lack of understanding about evolution and how it works. So too does the title of the thread.

Why is that?

We can posit certain criteria which could make a particular person 'better' (or perhaps possess more potential) than another person. Criteria like intelligence, emotional and mental stability, fitness and metabolism, disease resistance etc. Juggle around with those how you will but I'm sure you can each come up with a number of attributes which would make a 'better' human being.

Now, in our current lifestyle, are there evolutionary forces moving us towards that ideal, away from it, or are we not changing at all? In other words, are we getting better or worse?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

This statement indicates a complete lack of understanding about evolution and how it works. So too does the title of the thread.

Why is that?

We can posit certain criteria which could make a particular person 'better' (or perhaps possess more potential) than another person. Criteria like intelligence, emotional and mental stability, fitness and metabolism, disease resistance etc. Juggle around with those how you will but I'm sure you can each come up with a number of attributes which would make a 'better' human being.

Now, in our current lifestyle, are there evolutionary forces moving us towards that ideal, away from it, or are we not changing at all? In other words, are we getting better or worse?

What you might consider better or worse has nothing what so ever to do with Evolution
Evolution is not driven by opinion.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Ignorance seems to love company

Ahh, but ignorance is bliss.

Arrogance, on the other hand, is quite lonely.

Not from up here where i sit,its not at all lonely, and our conversations are not bogged down with ignorant supposition

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[JackC 0]

Quote

What you might consider better or worse has nothing what so ever to do with Evolution
Evolution is not driven by opinion.

No but natural selection is the driving force behind what people call the process of evolution, and natural selection is being nullified by modern medicine and modern society. It could be argued that genetically weaker individuals (however you want to define the term) are not selected out as they would naturally have been. The point that the OP linked to, and Quade's take on it, are valid.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

What you might consider better or worse has nothing what so ever to do with Evolution
Evolution is not driven by opinion.

No but natural selection is the driving force behind what people call the process of evolution, and natural selection is being nullified by modern medicine and modern society. It could be argued that genetically weaker individuals (however you want to define the term) are not selected out as they would naturally have been. The point that the OP linked to, and Quade's take on it, are valid.

No they are not because Evolution as a process of Natural Selection will continue regardless, it does not matter what we as humans do, it may have changed the way we view HUMAN evolution but the process contiunes regardless.
It's a million year process. Evolution does not concern itself with the futile efforts of mankind

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

What you might consider better or worse has nothing what so ever to do with Evolution

But it has to do with us! You are being very, very blinkered here, you need to recognise that there are two parts to the equation.

Firstly, how is evolution acting on humans in the modern world?

Secondly what qualities and attributes in human beings do we consider to be better or worse.

You then put the two together and ask, are evolutionary forces in the modern world more likely to increase what we see as 'good' qualities or 'bad' qualities in future generations?

Quote

Evolution is not driven by opinion.

No one said it was. I think you've majorly misread the content of this thread!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

I think you have misunderstood what is meant by natural selection (the inclusion of the word natural makes it a bit of a misnomer in this case).

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

No they are not because Evolution as a process of Natural Selection will continue regardless, it does not matter what we as humans do, it may have changed the way we view HUMAN evolution but the process contiunes regardless.
It's a million year process. Evolution does not concern itself with the futile efforts of mankind

You have definitely misunderstood the purpose of the thread!

The link in the OP is not talking about all of evolution, it is only talking about humans, and what the future holds for only the evolution of the human race.

If you think that the OP is ignorant or misinformed then you're going to have to try and argue that either a) modern civilisation and medical science has not altered the evolutionary forces on the human race or b) we cannot apply abstract concepts such as 'better' or 'worse' to different human beings (like more vs less intelligent, fitter vs fatter, sickly vs healthy etc.).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for the link. I'd like to read more of the underlying data that led Jones to his conclusions.

I agree with some of what he suggests - that through technology (from domestication of animals & plants to advanced biomedicine, ergonomics, and reduced violence comparatively) and civilization, humans have short-circuited (or created new pathways around) the natural processes that drove evolution for hundreds of millions of years.

Transhumanists like Ray Kurzweil and post-humanists might reach a different end-state than Jones.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

No they are not because Evolution as a process of Natural Selection will continue regardless, it does not matter what we as humans do, it may have changed the way we view HUMAN evolution but the process contiunes regardless.
It's a million year process. Evolution does not concern itself with the futile efforts of mankind

You have definitely misunderstood the purpose of the thread!

The link in the OP is not talking about all of evolution, it is only talking about humans, and what the future holds for only the evolution of the human race.

If you think that the OP is ignorant or misinformed then you're going to have to try and argue that either a) modern civilisation and medical science has not altered the evolutionary forces on the human race or b) we cannot apply abstract concepts such as 'better' or 'worse' to different human beings (like more vs less intelligent, fitter vs fatter, sickly vs healthy etc.).

The problem here is that you lot are egocentric in your views of Evolution,
Evolutionary pressures are still at work, they are different and changing for humans because we manipulate our surroundings, but they are still at work.
Everyone seems to be viewing the process on a very finite time scale. Evolution does not work on a human time table. the traits tat you are comparing are irrelevant so long as the human genome continues that's all that matters.
This thread topic and Quades post supposes that there is a PEAK in human Evolution and that we have passed it (or are passing it) That is just out right wrong and displays a poor understanding of evolution.

If you are talking about a peak in social and or intellectual societies and comparing them to recent pasts, that is a completely different argument and has nothing to do with Evolution

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

The problem here is that you lot are egocentric in your views of Evolution,

The whole point of the study is to be egocentric, and it is not a problem.

It is possible to apply human concepts of better and worse to the products of evolution without making the mistake of thinking that evolution is actually working towards making humans 'better'.

Is it better to have brains that learn more quickly, deal more easily with abstract concepts, remember more things and generally have a potential for higher IQs? Is it better to have bodies that are less prone to obesity, heart disease, cancer and common harmful bacteria and viruses? In modern society are we more likely to be selecting for or against (or is there any selection pressure left at all) these and various other 'better' attributes we could come up with?

Talking about a 'peak' of human evolution in these terms is not neccesarily wrong, or a misunderstanding, it's simply self appraisal.

Seriously, you need to step back, reread what everyone is saying and stop assuming that we're making mistakes that we aren't actually making.

Quote

the traits tat you are comparing are irrelevant

Not to us! That's the whole point.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,110]

>Evolutionary pressures are still at work, they are different and changing for
>humans because we manipulate our surroundings, but they are still at work.

Agreed. However, while we are still exposed to random mutation and selection pressures, it is no longer natural selection. It is now artificial. So what we are experiencing now is more akin to the breeding forces that produce various breeds of dogs than what produce change in most mammals.

Humans were once selected for resistance to disease, physical strength, ability to go long times without food, ability to withstand weather extremes, endurance etc etc. These qualities allowed humans to survive to breeding age and to raise their children successfully; in evolutionary terms this is considered success.

Now we are being selected for sufficient ignorance to not be able to understand birth control, a metabolism poor enough to not be able to utilize most of the food we eat, and the ability to qualify for state aid. That is selection of a kind, but it is far from natural.

[n23x 0]

Dude, You live in Oklahoma.

That's like going to the monkey cage at the zoo and asking where all the hot babes are.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>Evolutionary pressures are still at work, they are different and changing for
>humans because we manipulate our surroundings, but they are still at work.

Agreed. However, while we are still exposed to random mutation and selection pressures, it is no longer natural selection. It is now artificial. So what we are experiencing now is more akin to the breeding forces that produce various breeds of dogs than what produce change in most mammals.

Humans were once selected for resistance to disease, physical strength, ability to go long times without food, ability to withstand weather extremes, endurance etc etc. These qualities allowed humans to survive to breeding age and to raise their children successfully; in evolutionary terms this is considered success.

Now we are being selected for sufficient ignorance to not be able to understand birth control, a metabolism poor enough to not be able to utilize most of the food we eat, and the ability to qualify for state aid. That is selection of a kind, but it is far from natural.

A philosopher might answer that it is entirely natural: what you're describing is a product of sentient (on this planet, currently: human) intelligence; and sentient intelligence is natural; therefore its products must be deemed to be "natural", etc. Logically, on any planet that develops life, if conditions are right for that life to reproduce and evolve to the point of sentient intelligence, that sentient life will, naturally, develop technology, which will, naturally, give rise essentially to the process you're describing: the harnessing of fire, agriculture, invention of the wheel, Pop-Tarts, guns and TelePrompTers.

[billvon 3,110]

>A philosopher might answer that it is entirely natural: what you're
>describing is a product of sentient (on this planet, currently: human)
>intelligence; and sentient intelligence is natural; therefore its products
> must be deemed to be "natural."

True - but by that definition, nuclear waste is natural. I don't think too many people use such a definition.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>A philosopher might answer that it is entirely natural: what you're
>describing is a product of sentient (on this planet, currently: human)
>intelligence; and sentient intelligence is natural; therefore its products
> must be deemed to be "natural."

True - but by that definition, nuclear waste is natural. I don't think too many people use such a definition.

In my world, I'm a majority of One.

[quade 4]

Quote

>A philosopher might answer that it is entirely natural: what you're
>describing is a product of sentient (on this planet, currently: human)
>intelligence; and sentient intelligence is natural; therefore its products
> must be deemed to be "natural."

True - but by that definition, nuclear waste is natural. I don't think too many people use such a definition.

I've never understood the idea that just because something is "natural" it's "good for you."

There are countless substances found in nature that are deadly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver