Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: *****humans are messing up evolution*****

  1. #1 *****humans are messing up evolution***** 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2
    We have changed how natural selection works, don't understand that then let me explain. You've heard of "survival of the fittest" only those who are able to survive will. Well today everyone is fit to survive and reproduce its so easy anybody can do it & everyone does. This is because of how creative humans are with their inventions. We are going even more and more blind because of glasses & we now use bathrooms i mean look at ourselves we cant even use the restroom without someone else's invention, those are just 2 of the millions of examples. We've also eliminated disease since we have a cure for almost everything nature throws at us. So we are now evolving randomly which only has one upside we are going to need more inventions to match our problems and that creates more jobs for the rich to feed off.


    Last edited by Justin M.; July 13th, 2014 at 01:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Strictly speaking it's not possible to "mess up" evolution.
    I get the feeling you don't actually know much about it.
    (Oh and you really should learn some actual history/ biology/ technology/ something - we "lost our fur" long before we started to pay for clothes).


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2
    So am i right or am i wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Neither.
    Evolution just happens "differently" than it did "originally".

    We are going even more and more blind because of glasses
    Er, what?

    We've also eliminated disease
    Except for the ones we haven't.

    So we are now evolving randomly
    No more - or less - "randomly" than we were before. There's different pressures on us than when we lived as hunter-gatherers on a savannah somewhere, but that's all.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Poorly adjusted eyesight is corrected by the wearing of corrective lenses and the 'fault' is handed down the gen pool.. So what !
    ~ Stupid people bread and the sum of the populations IQ is lowered.. Some of the best educated and cleaver,
    do not have children, or very few.. does this lower our overall intelligence.. It does NOT.
    ~ Just as well educated and seemingly cleaver people can have lower IQ children, so too can the opposite be true..
    Some of the skills of the native tribesman may for this generation be not required just as advanced electronic programing is a narrow field of very few.. The world we live in has changed. That could change in a blink... The ability to adapt is our savior.. not our education.
    Yet education is what you need to survive.. Life skills and practical education.
    Our ability to cross the globe and bread is not a step back. It's progress. A global community will evolve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin M. View Post
    We are going even more and more blind because of glasses
    That's how evolution works. Cave fish lose their eyes altogether as a result of evolution.
    we now use bathrooms i mean look at ourselves we cant even use the restroom without someone else's invention
    ?? I don't know about you but I can use a tree with no problems.
    We've also eliminated disease since we have a cure for almost everything nature throws at us. So we are now evolving randomly which only has one upside we are going to need more inventions to match our problems and that creates more jobs for the rich to feed off.
    I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that there is some "good" goal evolution has (like humans with super strength and super vision etc etc.) It doesn't have any such goal. The only goal is survival. If better eyesight helps you survive (and more importantly reproduce) then better sight will evolve. If it doesn't then it won't, and sight will tend to drift. If having no eyes at all helps you survive (by not wasting that energy) - then that's the direction evolution will take you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin M. View Post
    We are going even more and more blind because of glasses
    That's how evolution works. Cave fish lose their eyes altogether as a result of evolution.
    we now use bathrooms i mean look at ourselves we cant even use the restroom without someone else's invention
    ?? I don't know about you but I can use a tree with no problems.
    We've also eliminated disease since we have a cure for almost everything nature throws at us. So we are now evolving randomly which only has one upside we are going to need more inventions to match our problems and that creates more jobs for the rich to feed off.
    I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming that there is some "good" goal evolution has (like humans with super strength and super vision etc etc.) It doesn't have any such goal. The only goal is survival. If better eyesight helps you survive (and more importantly reproduce) then better sight will evolve. If it doesn't then it won't, and sight will tend to drift. If having no eyes at all helps you survive (by not wasting that energy) - then that's the direction evolution will take you.
    A species could become so finely attuned to one aspect that if that aspect failed in its environment it is unable to survive. So when you say "the only goal is survival", evolution may involuntarily lead to extinction.
    Isn't the real result of evolution diversity? The only goal is diversity. Some strains survive, some don't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3
    I assume the OP's argument is that the current state of standard human life leaves human reproduction to occur between individuals who would be considered unfit for life in an environment that would be traditionally defined as 'natural'. The glasses thing is apparent, since corrective lenses are commonplace, there isn't noticeable difficulty for individuals with poor eyesight to survive and reproduce (sometimes geek culture causes bespectacled people to look sexier) and thus the genes (alleles?) that cause the poor eyesight to become more common. Basically if some variation of the Apocalypse were to occur that stripped humans of modern technology, the vast majority of us would be totally screwed. Not only because we wouldn't have enough basic resources (like heating and food), but because we wouldn't be genetically fit to hunt, forage, heal, or take care of people in environments like jungles, savannahs, etc. Those with poor eyesight, diseases that require constant medication, hypermetabolism, mental illness(highly debatable as to what would count as one then) and the like would die off, leaving few with the ability to survive.

    Don't see what the point is, though, since in a while we'll probably be able to either induce mass artificial selection or genetic alteration to make use awesome and get rid of any significant 'evolution' altogether, since there will be lesser and lesser common characteristics between individuals to cause a species-wide change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    11
    I can completely agree with what you say. like when a fox chases a rabbit, the faster rabbits will survive and reproduce and the faster foxes will catch and eat survive reproduce and give there traits to there off spring just like the rabbit would for its offspring, half the people on this forum are trolls and will disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing, there sad, your theory is spot on the same thought has also crossed my mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by shootthenoob View Post
    I can completely agree with what you say. like when a fox chases a rabbit, the faster rabbits will survive and reproduce and the faster foxes will catch and eat survive reproduce and give there traits to there off spring just like the rabbit would for its offspring, half the people on this forum are trolls and will disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing, there sad, your theory is spot on the same thought has also crossed my mind.
    You should state who you are in agreement with. Please edit your post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Zurr
    Not only because we wouldn't have enough basic resources (like heating and food), but because we wouldn't be genetically fit to hunt, forage, heal, or take care of people in environments like jungles, savannahs, etc.
    Not genetically fit? I don't think so.

    The ability to survive in jungles, savannahs, deserts, mountains is taught to youngsters from the time they're able to talk. The necessary skills and knowledge are not transferred as genetically innate. They are transferred by teaching and training.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    One of NZ's local politicians got himself into a quagmire of abusive comment when he referred to a class of people as
    ~ 'The feril Underclass' That they breed prolificly is concerning and may be our undoing.. He said; ... and then the trouble started.. Some of the cleverest people I know are childless.. that cant be good for the evolution of the species.. interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Zurr
    Not only because we wouldn't have enough basic resources (like heating and food), but because we wouldn't be genetically fit to hunt, forage, heal, or take care of people in environments like jungles, savannahs, etc.
    Not genetically fit? I don't think so.

    The ability to survive in jungles, savannahs, deserts, mountains is taught to youngsters from the time they're able to talk. The necessary skills and knowledge are not transferred as genetically innate. They are transferred by teaching and training.
    True, the skills and knowledge would be passed down through teaching and the like. I am not arguing this. I was specifically speaking of genetic traits that would be advantageous in such a setting. For example, 20/20 vision, lack of common allergies, high fat-storing metabolism (people who metabolise fast are great now because we have tons of food, but would suck in places where a meal is scarce).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Zurr View Post
    True, the skills and knowledge would be passed down through teaching and the like. I am not arguing this. I was specifically speaking of genetic traits that would be advantageous in such a setting. For example, 20/20 vision, lack of common allergies, high fat-storing metabolism (people who metabolise fast are great now because we have tons of food, but would suck in places where a meal is scarce).
    Keep in mind that much of what you list above is developmental. A poor diet in children results in poor eyesight, for example. Exposure to dirt and filth when you are very young _reduces_ the incidence of allergies later in life (if you survive of course.)

    However, to your original point there are some traits that are ideal for living in a civilization, and there are traits that are ideal for living in the wilderness. Brain development increases reproductive fitness in both, and indeed has resulted in our civilization.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 65
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2013, 06:15 AM
  2. Further evolution of humans.
    By somfooleishfool in forum Biology
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: August 15th, 2011, 05:01 AM
  3. Evolution of humans
    By wolwerine94 in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: May 30th, 2008, 06:51 PM
  4. EVOLUTION:WE HUMANS or viruses?
    By prasan in forum Biology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 28th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •