Natural Selection, should we interfere?

[pokerspiv]

I was referring to the top part of the wiki article, not the list

Ah ok, I didn't read the top part, I was just linking the list. But yeah, It's pretty hard to argue against the theory that aboriginal people caused a lot of extinctions, although it's tough to tell exactly which due to the vagaries of paleontology.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

well i think there are plenty of examples where we are? i mean, we took ourselves out of the food chain for starters. we're the only animal that can impact the global climate etc.



i would suggest scale and impact on the surrounding environment make the difference.

have we really? the largest cause of death is still viruses, parasites and bacteria.

and what of our efforts to protect nature, by keeping invasive species under control. reclaiming wetlands, reintroducing threatened species is that two unnatural?

 

[pokerspiv]

have we really? the largest cause of death is still viruses, parasites and bacteria.

Not in developed countries. Chronic disease (heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc) make up over 80% of premature deaths in Australia.

Certainly though there are some places where viruses are the leading cause, namely Malaria and HIV. In places like Africa, chronic disease is only responsible for around 30%, where viruses and bacteria make up 60% of premature deaths.

 

[Long Live HFC]

have we really? the largest cause of death is still viruses, parasites and bacteria.

they aren't part of the food chain though?

and what of our efforts to protect nature, by keeping invasive species under control. reclaiming wetlands, reintroducing threatened species is that two unnatural?

yes, i think they are (as i alluded to above).

 

[Sydney Bloods]

they aren't part of the food chain though?
yes, i think they are (as i alluded to above).

why not? there living organisms, they feed on life and in turn other life feeds on them.

but why? we are part of the ecosystem, what we do affects the environment around us and in turn our environment affects us.

just because we can affect our environment on a larger scale we should treat everything we do as unnatural?

 

[little graham]

Certainly though there are some places where viruses are the leading cause, namely Malaria and HIV. In places like Africa, chronic disease is only responsible for around 30%, where viruses and bacteria make up 60% of premature deaths.

Whats the HIV rate amongst gay males in NSW? Last I heard it was 20 %?

 

[Long Live HFC]

why not? there living organisms, they feed on life and in turn other life feeds on them.

i didn't make the rules and am not a biologist. but i can't find a single source that claims that viruses et al are part of the food chain.

but why? we are part of the ecosystem, what we do affects the environment around us and in turn our environment affects us.

technology separates us from other animals (in this context). pouring chemical refuse into the water supply from our activities is not "part of the ecosystem". nor is unnaturally warming the planet with our gases. nor is destroying untold hectares of forest for paper or roads etc.

just because we can affect our environment on a larger scale we should treat everything we do as unnatural?

not necessarily everything, but generally, yes.

 

[Taylor]

Extinction is the natural order of things. Extinction is the default status of life on this planet.

We are unable to stop the flow of life and we shouldn't tast ourselves with preserving everything, because we won't and that isn't productive.

Minimizing our impact will be the most we can hope to achieve but when pandas just won't have babies there is only so much we can do.

 

[Tas]

Medicine is directly interfering with natural selection as are many of our laws.

Yes, they do and it makes our gene pool weaker as a result, but we can afford to weaken the gene pool because we are still dominant, by a long shot.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

i didn't make the rules and am not a biologist. but i can't find a single source that claims that viruses et al are part of the food chain.



technology separates us from other animals (in this context). pouring chemical refuse into the water supply from our activities is not "part of the ecosystem". nor is unnaturally warming the planet with our gases. nor is destroying untold hectares of forest for paper or roads etc.



not necessarily everything, but generally, yes.

i never said what we did is part of the ecosystem, i said we are apart of the ecosystem. much like the beaver and its dam. i'm not saying we should do whatever we want to the planet. we're smart enough to understand the impact on our environment we have a duty to protect it. at the very least to ensure quality of life for future generations.

what i don't agree with is there's this nonsense humans are separate.

elephants destroy hectares of trees for its use, rabbits obliterate the landscape around them, dolphins and seals ravage fish stocks. hell chimps * up trees just to use a few sticks they use to get ants and termites out of mounds. which leads us to ants and termites two of the most destructive lifeforms on the planet. (apart from things like algae)

this nonsense that only mankind * s**t up is exactly that nonsense, almost all animals alter their environment to suit themselves. we are part of the environment the only difference is we are smart enough to see the impact we have on it.

 

[Xsess]

We have institutionalised interference in natural selection. Its called "welfare"

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yes, they do and it makes our gene pool weaker as a result, but we can afford to weaken the gene pool because we are still dominant, by a long shot.

How does it make the gene pool weaker?

Strength is a misnomer when applied to evolutionary biology. The most adaptable survive not the strongest. Also it is largely random.

 

[Play by Numbers]

We have institutionalised interference in natural selection. Its called "welfare"

Welfare is natural, humans are social animals.

 

[Play by Numbers]

i never said what we did is part of the ecosystem, i said we are apart of the ecosystem. much like the beaver and its dam. i'm not saying we should do whatever we want to the planet. we're smart enough to understand the impact on our environment we have a duty to protect it. at the very least to ensure quality of life for future generations.

what i don't agree with is there's this nonsense humans are separate.

elephants destroy hectares of trees for its use, rabbits obliterate the landscape around them, dolphins and seals ravage fish stocks. hell chimps **** up trees just to use a few sticks they use to get ants and termites out of mounds. which leads us to ants and termites two of the most destructive lifeforms on the planet. (apart from things like algae)

this nonsense that only mankind **** s**t up is exactly that nonsense, almost all animals alter their environment to suit themselves. we are part of the environment the only difference is we are smart enough to see the impact we have on it.

Given we are likely responsible for the sixth great extinction event it is not nonsense.

Just as humans destroy habitats, they may also help preserve or repair the damage if at all possible.

In the end it will be as much self preservation, as anything.

 

[Pessimistic]

We have institutionalised interference in natural selection. Its called "welfare"

Or justice when I kill you for your stash

 

[Pessimistic]

On the other hand, its remarkable how resilient our planet is when you look at the dead rocks out there

 

[Tas]

How does it make the gene pool weaker?

Strength is a misnomer when applied to evolutionary biology. The most adaptable survive not the strongest. Also it is largely random.

Strength is a figurative term, it has more to do with luck. Evolution is a number crunching game where an almost impossible number of possibilities are created and the flawed ones are rejected. If you do not remove the weak options then the pool retains the weaker options and they are likely to keep appearing in the future generations.

Ie, if everyone with genetic inherited disabilities had the conviction to not breed then those would be removed from the gene pool making the entire pool stronger, because we would no longer have those weaknesses in the pool.

You can apply that same criteria to many different factors, some people are prone to illness, some people will die if they lick a peanut. Our compassion is admirable but if people had the interest of the species at heart then they would make the commitment to not reproduce, sure, use the medicine to live as comfortable a life as possible.

We are a selfish species. If you pet noticed one of it's offspring had a defect it would likely kill it or not feed it, it seems cruel but that prevents weaknesses establishing in a gene pool.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Strength is a figurative term, it has more to do with luck. Evolution is a number crunching game where an almost impossible number of possibilities are created and the flawed ones are rejected. If you do not remove the weak options then the pool retains the weaker options and they are likely to keep appearing in the future generations.

Ie, if everyone with genetic inherited disabilities had the conviction to not breed then those would be removed from the gene pool making the entire pool stronger, because we would no longer have those weaknesses in the pool.

You can apply that same criteria to many different factors, some people are prone to illness, some people will die if they lick a peanut. Our compassion is admirable but if people had the interest of the species at heart then they would make the commitment to not reproduce, sure, use the medicine to live as comfortable a life as possible.

We are a selfish species. If you pet noticed one of it's offspring had a defect it would likely kill it or not feed it, it seems cruel but that prevents weaknesses establishing in a gene pool.

This is a common mistake.

Different phenotypes are not "weeded out". They are either lethal, selected for or against, or not effected by selection.

There is no stronger or weaker. If a phenotype is dis advantageous then it will be selected against, so the organism will have difficulty finding a mate and breeding, thus passing on its genetic heritage.

For humans, most serious chromosomal abnormalities are lethal or effect reproduction, and multifactorial or single gene mutations which lead to disability when two carriers mate can be harder to detect. However, humans have different selection pressures, so despite it being nominally rare for individuals with severe disabilities (gene or chromosomal) to have children, it doesnt really impact the so called gene pool.

So yeah, there is no flawed, weak, rejected etc. You either breed and a trait does not impact selection or can be selected for, or dont and are selected against.

 

[Long Live HFC]

i never said what we did is part of the ecosystem, i said we are apart of the ecosystem. much like the beaver and its dam. i'm not saying we should do whatever we want to the planet. we're smart enough to understand the impact on our environment we have a duty to protect it. at the very least to ensure quality of life for future generations.

what i don't agree with is there's this nonsense humans are separate.

elephants destroy hectares of trees for its use, rabbits obliterate the landscape around them, dolphins and seals ravage fish stocks. hell chimps **** up trees just to use a few sticks they use to get ants and termites out of mounds. which leads us to ants and termites two of the most destructive lifeforms on the planet. (apart from things like algae)

this nonsense that only mankind **** s**t up is exactly that nonsense, almost all animals alter their environment to suit themselves. we are part of the environment the only difference is we are smart enough to see the impact we have on it.

good points, well made. this really isn't a subject i have much experience or training in, i'm really just posting gut feelings and notions i've arrived at without much consideration.

having said that though, i think (again) the scale at which humans impact their environment makes us qualitatively different to all other animals, past and present. previous mass extinctions have been due to climate changes, whereas we cause them just by being and doing our thing. i think the scale at which we do things is what makes us and our impact "unnatural", and the rate at which we can impact the ecosystem also sets us apart.

 

[Tas]

This is a common mistake.

Different phenotypes are not "weeded out". They are either lethal, selected for or against, or not effected by selection.

There is no stronger or weaker. If a phenotype is dis advantageous then it will be selected against, so the organism will have difficulty finding a mate and breeding, thus passing on its genetic heritage.

For humans, most serious chromosomal abnormalities are lethal or effect reproduction, and multifactorial or single gene mutations which lead to disability when two carriers mate can be harder to detect. However, humans have different selection pressures, so despite it being nominally rare for individuals with severe disabilities (gene or chromosomal) to have children, it doesnt really impact the so called gene pool.

So yeah, there is no flawed, weak, rejected etc. You either breed and a trait does not impact selection or can be selected for, or dont and are selected against.

There is flawed, there is weak or weaker. Human leg bones have become weaker since farming was invented, it might seem like a trivial issue but is evidence that we can become worse based on society/lifestyle and breeding habits, when we didn't farm the probability someone weak would survive long enough to breed was slim.

"An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.

Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 per cent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ears-ago-declining-rapidly.html#ixzz3UjSRReMa

This evidence is also supporting a theory amongst some geneticists that mankind is undergoing genetic entropy, that our peak was a long time ago and generation by generation we are now getting weaker, tests between older genetic specimens and modern ones suggest the number of genetic mutations are growing rapidly and the vast majority are dangerous to us.

Most other species have to still contend with the food cycle, almost every other species other than us and our pets come into the world screaming and exit the same way. This weeds out the weakest of their species. The strongest of their species within a given pool tend to dominate the breeding. We do not have any cleansing process and really haven't since we stopped being hunters and became farmers who made large societies. We have had poor genetic specimens live longer and reproduce more as the dominance of the species has passed from the strongest to the smartest.

Another article of interest, "Most mutations in the human genome are recent and probably harmful"

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

"Fast population growth has littered our genomes with five times as many rare gene variants as would be expected."

"On average, every duplication of the human genome includes 100 new errors, so all that reproducing gave our DNA many opportunities to accumulate mutations. But evolution hasn’t had enough time to weed out the dangerous ones: gene variants that might make us prone to illness, or simply less likely to survive."

"Joshua Akey of the University of Washington recently explored the average age of our species’s gene variants, finding that most are very young. About three-quarters of single nucleotide variants — a mutation that substitutes just one nucleotide (an A, C, T or G) in the long string of DNA — occurred within the past 5,000 years, surprising considering that our species may be 200,000 years old. Using several techniques to gauge the effects of these mutations, which are the most common type of variant in the human genome, Akey estimated that more than 80 percent are probably harmful to us."

Lifestyle, environment, rapid population growth, medicine, lack of natural selection are factors which are leading us down this genetic downward spiral.

 

[Long Live HFC]

And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ears-ago-declining-rapidly.html#ixzz3UjSRReMa

the next sentence could've been "which can lead us to using the daily mail as a source"

 

[clogged]

There is flawed, there is weak or weaker. Human leg bones have become weaker since farming was invented, it might seem like a trivial issue but is evidence that we can become worse based on society/lifestyle and breeding habits, when we didn't farm the probability someone weak would survive long enough to breed was slim.

"An earlier study by Cambridge University found that mankind is shrinking in size significantly.

Experts say humans are past their peak and that modern-day people are 10 per cent smaller and shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors.

And if that’s not depressing enough, our brains are also smaller."

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ears-ago-declining-rapidly.html#ixzz3UjSRReMa

This evidence is also supporting a theory amongst some geneticists that mankind is undergoing genetic entropy, that our peak was a long time ago and generation by generation we are now getting weaker, tests between older genetic specimens and modern ones suggest the number of genetic mutations are growing rapidly and the vast majority are dangerous to us.

Most other species have to still contend with the food cycle, almost every other species other than us and our pets come into the world screaming and exit the same way. This weeds out the weakest of their species. The strongest of their species within a given pool tend to dominate the breeding. We do not have any cleansing process and really haven't since we stopped being hunters and became farmers who made large societies. We have had poor genetic specimens live longer and reproduce more as the dominance of the species has passed from the strongest to the smartest.

Another article of interest, "Most mutations in the human genome are recent and probably harmful"

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-human-genome-are-recent-and-probably-harmful

"Fast population growth has littered our genomes with five times as many rare gene variants as would be expected."

"On average, every duplication of the human genome includes 100 new errors, so all that reproducing gave our DNA many opportunities to accumulate mutations. But evolution hasn’t had enough time to weed out the dangerous ones: gene variants that might make us prone to illness, or simply less likely to survive."

"Joshua Akey of the University of Washington recently explored the average age of our species’s gene variants, finding that most are very young. About three-quarters of single nucleotide variants — a mutation that substitutes just one nucleotide (an A, C, T or G) in the long string of DNA — occurred within the past 5,000 years, surprising considering that our species may be 200,000 years old. Using several techniques to gauge the effects of these mutations, which are the most common type of variant in the human genome, Akey estimated that more than 80 percent are probably harmful to us."

Lifestyle, environment, rapid population growth, medicine, lack of natural selection are factors which are leading us down this genetic downward spiral.

Sorry, but I think I'll go with the guy who actually works in genetics on this, rather than someone who has curated links to support his point of view.

Human brains are smaller because we created out-brains - books, internet, etc. We know how to synthesise knowledge from knowledge we have previously stored away, instead of relying on a large brain to store everything we need to know.

 

[clogged]

good points, well made. this really isn't a subject i have much experience or training in, i'm really just posting gut feelings and notions i've arrived at without much consideration.

having said that though, i think (again) the scale at which humans impact their environment makes us qualitatively different to all other animals, past and present. previous mass extinctions have been due to climate changes, whereas we cause them just by being and doing our thing. i think the scale at which we do things is what makes us and our impact "unnatural", and the rate at which we can impact the ecosystem also sets us apart.

The very first mass extinction was as a result of a living organism changing its atmosphere and climate.

 

[Tas]

Sorry, but I think I'll go with the guy who actually works in genetics on this, rather than someone who has curated links to support his point of view.

Human brains are smaller because we created out-brains - books, internet, etc. We know how to synthesise knowledge from knowledge we have previously stored away, instead of relying on a large brain to store everything we need to know.

So all these scientists and researches are wrong, what has the person you are going with peer review published?

 

[clogged]

So all these scientists and researches are wrong, what has the person you are going with peer review published?

The scientists aren't wrong, your interpretation is. The vast majority of genetic mutations are probably harmful. That doesn't mean humans are getting weaker or devolving or have 'peaked' as you contend.