Natural Selection, should we interfere?

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Apr 4, 2013
13,670
16,890
AFL Club
Fremantle
sorry, you'll need to elaborate.
Look up the Great Oxygenation Event. Almost wiped out life on earth completely before it even reached multicellular stage. Some theorise that it could be the Great Filter.
 
Look up the Great Oxygenation Event. Almost wiped out life on earth completely before it even reached multicellular stage. Some theorise that it could be the Great Filter.

What has that got to do with anything I wrote?
 

Play by Numbers

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2007
7,589
3,506
All up in Jock's icecream
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
None of this matters. Nor is it evidence for your position.

Physically weaker does not mean the gene pool is weaker. The closest thing you could claim to a weak gene pool is a small isolated population, where interbreeding is common.

There is no such thing as a genetic downward spiral, unless you count over specialisation.

Success is not measured in physical strength, but population size and stability. Humans are more prolific and longer living than ever before.

Lets take the example of peanuts. Peanut allergy does not weaken the gene pool. I am yet to see evidence that it impacts an individuals success. Likewise if it became common, that would a) show it does not competitively disadvantage an individual and b) may indicate some other trait in those individuals was genetically advantageous, thus they were more successful in evolutionary terms.

If it became common across all populations, it would become like any other food we cannot eat, and given our various other adaptions would not really matter. Unless we were invaded by giant peanut aliens or all other crops on the earth became unavailable. Still these would just be in keeping with the idea that selection pressures change often at random.

Another example might be sickle cell anemia. Carriers might be genetically weaker in your eyes, but it has confered an advantage to populations in parts of Africa, leading to greater resistance to malaria.

Basically, people transpose their values of what constitutes strong, weak etc. into evolutionary biology, but thats not how nature works..
 
Last edited:

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,544
4,361
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Look up the Great Oxygenation Event. Almost wiped out life on earth completely before it even reached multicellular stage. Some theorise that it could be the Great Filter.

thanks for that, interesting. i think that's more an 'exception that proves the rule' type situation, though? especially if we're comparing the time-frames involved?
 

clogged

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Apr 4, 2013
13,670
16,890
AFL Club
Fremantle
thanks for that, interesting. i think that's more an 'exception that proves the rule' type situation, though? especially if we're comparing the time-frames involved?
The point is, life has shaped this planet to be liveable for humans, sometimes even at its own cost. Humans aren't separate from the biosphere. Even the materials we extract for industry were once laid down by life. The obvious organic commodities like oil and coal are a given, but limestone, iron ore, and even gold (in its most accessible form) were all laid down by bacteria and other living things over billions of years. Without free oxygen and weathering, you don't get enriched mineral deposits.

People like to believe that humans can't affect this planet's liveability and that our civilisation is demonstration of how we have gone beyond what the natural world provides. But both of these beliefs are demonstrably wrong.
 
No, you have interpreted the science incorrectly.

It does not mean what you think it means.

Those articles didn't leave much to interpretation. Do you have anything online you can link to that contradicts those studies and what those scientists have said. Just saying no and i am interpreting it wrong isn't saying much.
 
None of this matters. Nor is it evidence for your position.

Physically weaker does not mean the gene pool is weaker. The closest thing you could claim to a weak gene pool is a small isolated population, where interbreeding is common.

That is the problem though, there are a lot of us now but the human gene pool isn't as diverse as it should be, humans have been interbreeding for a long time, a study estimates 1 in 200 men are direct descendants of Genghis Khan and he died 1227, that really is very lop sided for 7 billion people, in just 800 odd years. How shitful was the size of our gene pool 2000 years ago? 5000 years ago? 10000 years ago? We are meant to be 200k years old.

There is no such thing as a genetic downward spiral, unless you count over specialisation.

Isn't that what they are claiming? The number of genetic mutations (approx 80% of which are negative) is increasing every generation. You do not get that in a healthy genetic gene pool, and I couldn't find anything which disproved or questioned the research.

Success is not measured in physical strength, but population size and stability. Humans are more prolific and longer living than ever before.

Our medicine and the availability of food and clean water makes us live longer. We have the advantage of accumulated knowledge that is passed down from generation to generation, there is no evidence that we are smarter than we were 10,000 years ago, we just have a lot more accumulated knowledge than we did before. Isolated humans, like the Aborigines and other isolated islanders who haven't had access to that large of pool of knowledge probably never achieved anything significantly better than our ancient forefathers.

In the end competition has made us smarter, most of our golden ages have been in and around periods of great conflict.

Lets take the example of peanuts. Peanut allergy does not weaken the gene pool. I am yet to see evidence that it impacts an individuals success. Likewise if it became common, that would a) show it does not competitively disadvantage an individual and b) may indicate some other trait in those individuals was genetically advantageous, thus they were more successful in evolutionary terms.

Lets just say dying from eating a very common source of food which we would have acquired as hunters and gatherers would have more than likely weeded out those people from the gene pool until recently where we can treat and prevent access, so that genetic trait is a negative one, it does nothing positive for the recipient nor their potential offspring and increases your chance of dying to a mislabeled package or a forgetful relative on a picnic. That makes you weaker than someone who doesn't have that genetic weakness. Higher probability of death = weaker. Living and breeding means you are more likely to pass that weakness on to more and more people through future generations.

If it became common across all populations, it would become like any other food we cannot eat, and given our various other adaptions would not really matter. Unless we were invaded by giant peanut aliens or all other crops on the earth became unavailable. Still these would just be in keeping with the idea that selection pressures change often at random.

The peanut thing is really on the minor end of genetic problems. There are a lot more serious genetic defects.

Another example might be sickle cell anemia. Carriers might be genetically weaker in your eyes, but it has confered an advantage to populations in parts of Africa, leading to greater resistance to malaria.

Basically, people transpose their values of what constitutes strong, weak etc. into evolutionary biology, but thats not how nature works..

it is great they are less likely to get malaria but will likely die of a stroke or constantly be at risk of severe bacterial infections or develop cholelithiasis, or develop aseptic bone necrosis or have your spleen malfunction and decrease your immune reactions. Awesome about the malaria though...
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
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.

actually the homo sapien sapien brain is smaller because of environmental factors, nominal limited nutrition within the very hunter gather societies, tas incorrectly referenced as having larger brains. In fact in developed countries brain sizes have increased over the last 100 years. further more if study's that suggest brain development is positively affected by absorption of information then things such as books and the internet should aid in brain growth.

and there's a lot of evidence that shows brain size and intellect are not at all linked, in fact there's many studies that suggest a point will emerge where brains start to get smaller but have far more neural connections than previous generations effectively becoming more efficient.
 
There is only one culture that traveled the world with weapons (some biological) to destroy civilizations so they can mine and farm the land, ship those goods back to their homeland, so they can build more weapons. That culture created global warming, and those most responsible are the ones most in denial. Like you, they turn to abuse and aggression, when confronted with the reality of their culture. If you can call it a culture.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.
 
actually the homo sapien sapien brain is smaller because of environmental factors, nominal limited nutrition within the very hunter gather societies, tas incorrectly referenced as having larger brains. In fact in developed countries brain sizes have increased over the last 100 years. further more if study's that suggest brain development is positively affected by absorption of information then things such as books and the internet should aid in brain growth.

and there's a lot of evidence that shows brain size and intellect are not at all linked, in fact there's many studies that suggest a point will emerge where brains start to get smaller but have far more neural connections than previous generations effectively becoming more efficient.

Can you link said research? I didn't incorrectly reference anything, I linked to an article which discusses research that we are getting smaller, weaker and our brains are getting smaller. This is generally not perceived as a positive, if you can link some research that says it is then that would be great.
 

Gus Poyet

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 1, 2012
9,253
4,056
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
I love cats

And yet they are one of the most destructive forces on the Australian continent when it comes to the decimation of the native animal population.
 
And yet they are one of the most destructive forces on the Australian continent when it comes to the decimation of the native animal population.

Most introduced species are destructive, humans being the most destructive of them all.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Can you link said research? I didn't incorrectly reference anything, I linked to an article which discusses research that we are getting smaller, weaker and our brains are getting smaller. This is generally not perceived as a positive, if you can link some research that says it is then that would be great.

Start here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-has-human-brain-evolved/

Once your done with that this goes into a bit more detail about brain evolution:

Particularly relative brain mass and of briefly touches on the fact that cognitive function and brain size is not linked.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250601/Increasing-brain-size

and here's an in-depth study of brain evolution, for the section on smaller brains scroll down to the biological limits of processing information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

the problems is your misunderstanding of brain what it is how it works, What matters is for brain power is the size of the brain RELATIVE to body mass.
and this is why people in developed countries generally have larger brains. in the undeveloped world a lack of nutrition lead to smaller and smaller people. you see as your brain gets larger it requires more energy to function. as such growing up in societies with s**t house nutrition will lead to smaller body mass and in turn smaller brains because they require less food.

what you also erroneously draw is the comparison to the first homo sapians with us. your skipping over the fact that the human population went through a very long period of time in which the environmental conditions generally lent itself to where being smaller was an advantage.
Records in all developed country's have shown an upward trend in body mass and brain size.
This is because those conditions that lead to smaller people, namely malnutrition no longer exist.

right now humans are getting larger, this leads to bigger brains (although not necessarily better ones) over time the brain will get smaller as it efficiency becomes key.
 


Most of the article was talking about ancient days before we were actually recognised as humans, the only relevant part of that article was the last paragraph which said:

"With some evolutionary irony, the past 10,000 years of human existence actually shrank our brains. Limited nutrition in agricultural populations may have been an important driver of this trend. Industrial societies in the past 100 years, however, have seen brain size rebound, as childhood nutrition increased and disease declined. Although the past does not predict future evolution, a greater integration with technology and genetic engineering may catapult the human brain into the unknown."

It is a shame this paragraph was little more than a footnote to the article and it is not clear if the author (not the professor) is paraphrasing or not because there are no quotes in this paragraph and it is not precise. Limited nutrition in agricultural populations 'may' have been an important driver? Science isn't about guessing, it is about what you can measure and what you can't. Our brain sizes have rebounded? They are still smaller. The only point of fact in that paragraph was the acknowledgement that the brain has shrunk the last 10,000 years and this professor doesn't know why.

Once your done with that this goes into a bit more detail about brain evolution:

Particularly relative brain mass and of briefly touches on the fact that cognitive function and brain size is not linked.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250601/Increasing-brain-size

There is no link to studies in that encyclopedia article which makes reference to the ability to determine the cognitive ability of our humans 10,000 years ago to today. Their assumption that cognitive ability has improved is based upon technology used which is a poor reference point, some cultures were driven to change, others were not. For example, scientist and engineers still can't explain how a number of the ancient wonders were built given the technology they had at the time, some structures like the temple of sun was surrounded by obelisks that weighed over a thousand tons that were sculpted in a quarry over 500km away.

The Greeks built the Parthenon in less than 10 years with faultless proportions and balance with precision to within a fraction of a millimeter. When those restoring it were asked why it was 34 years and counting to try and restore it with modern technology the architect working on the project said, “We’re not as good as they were”.

Some ancient cultures pushed themselves with works of art we struggle to comprehend, others didn't really give a s**t, surving was the only priority.


and here's an in-depth study of brain evolution, for the section on smaller brains scroll down to the biological limits of processing information.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973910/

He is comparing humans to other animals, in particular mammals. I am comparing humans to other humans. This is a distinct difference. We do not know what we have lost as our brains have become smaller. I'm not saying we are dumber than Whales because they have a huge brain.

What is of interest in that article is the description of the structure of the human brain and the structural limitation for evolutionary growth, however, he is assuming that humans will never again make a quantum leap, which we have done several times in our past as our entire DNA was duplicated and resulted in radical biological variation.

the problems is your misunderstanding of brain what it is how it works, What matters is for brain power is the size of the brain RELATIVE to body mass.
and this is why people in developed countries generally have larger brains. in the undeveloped world a lack of nutrition lead to smaller and smaller people. you see as your brain gets larger it requires more energy to function. as such growing up in societies with s**t house nutrition will lead to smaller body mass and in turn smaller brains because they require less food.

People keep saying I don't understand but aren't really giving me anything to change my mind. If I read somethign that says yes I am wrong, then I am happy to change my mind, I like to improve my knowledge.

That isn't correct at all, black people have larger brains than white people. Men have larger brains than women.

http://www.africaresource.com/sci-t...race-and-brain-size-blacks-have-bigger-brains

"Interestingly, during the time periods in which the samples for the above mentioned studies were gathered, anthropomorphic research has shown that blacks were on average physically smaller (in stature) than whites, lived in inferior environments and received poorer nutrition (e.g. Alan 2006, 2007; ). Indicating that in spite of these environmental disadvantages, relatively lower anthropomorphic measurements and poorer nutritional intake, blacks still demonstrated larger brain volume."

He does talk about human evolution and brain size difference but is largely referring to much older humans, I am referring to modern humans in the last 10,000 years. He did say there was one reduction of the human brain 35,000 years ago, the major point of difference is that period about 7k years ago when we changed from hunting to farming, it changed us radically, we were no longer nomadic, we ate less meat and we started to form larger static societies which more easily allowed for the accumulation of knowledge, excessive breeding and the survival of weaker humans.

You stick a bunch of new born babies on a remote island with some adults that do not teach them anything, just feed them until they can care for themselves and they are not going to be building a nuclear power plant, they are going to be bare arsed scratching primitives where the last 10,000 years of evolution and 'great knowledge' wont give them spit of an advantage over our ancestors 10,000 years ago.

what you also erroneously draw is the comparison to the first homo sapians with us. your skipping over the fact that the human population went through a very long period of time in which the environmental conditions generally lent itself to where being smaller was an advantage.
Records in all developed country's have shown an upward trend in body mass and brain size.
This is because those conditions that lead to smaller people, namely malnutrition no longer exist.

right now humans are getting larger, this leads to bigger brains (although not necessarily better ones) over time the brain will get smaller as it efficiency becomes key.

No, I am not.

First homosapiens, the archaic humans were 500,000 years ago. Modern humans or Anatomically modern humans are 200,000 years ago. I have been talking about humans only 10,000 years ago, back when we have evidence of the birth of civilisations, particularly in ancient Greece where they have found in Macedonia pottery and other signs of civilisation dating back to around this period in time, however, the vast majority dates around 7,000 BC around the time farming was developed and the population moved around less.

This is not a radical period of time in the grand scheme of evolution. What exactly have we lost in that 10% is guess work, claims that people back then were stupid is just not accurate, they just hadn't stopped hunting long enough to record information and hand it down from generation to generation.
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt in my mind that the average human in Western society today is more intelligent than the average human at any other time in history; mainly due to standard of living maximising development through childhood and adolescence.
 

blackcat

Irving's godfather and handle
Dec 29, 2003
28,361
14,116
Beverly Hills 90210 Antifa bracket
AFL Club
Richmond
I love cats, especially big cats and it makes me sad that they are facing extinction and it is likely by the end of my lifetime that the only big cats left will be ones born and raised in captivity. I have donated a lot of money over the years to help save species from extinction but there is always this nagging doubt in my mind that should we intervene?

On one hand, we are the culprit that is causing the extinction of so many species but at a whim nature flushes numerous species down the genetic toilet, we are fortunate either a giant rock hasn't come crashing down on our head, a solar flare torched us like a roasted marshmallow or any other of the numerous forms that life can end. We adapt to the changing world, can we string along species that can't adapt?

If this is how 'god' intended it or 'science' intended it, nature is meant to test species and if they are found wanting to unceremoniously end their genetic contribution, no matter how majestic the creature may have been previously.

Is it humane to condemn a species from a proud predator into a side-show freak for the rest of their existence? They will never know what it means to be king of the jungle again. They have been tested and failed to adapt, or perhaps are adapting to over-sized house cats.

Thinking about the Amazonian Tiger Ant, it has had it's habitat destroyed by man, it used to be a giant winged ant that lived on the tops of giant rainforest trees but has in a short space of time evolved into a wingless smaller ant (smaller to avoid human detection) and wingless because flight is now obsolete, and it now lives in tree stumps since that is the only thing we have left for them, has changed from forest hunting to hunting in their new-found terrain.

We have shat all over these ants habitat and tested them genetically and they have adapted and can live in the shitful world we have created from the old natural world. They have passed the latest natural selection test.

Can we string along all the other species that can't live in the world we are creating?
we already interfere, we do inbreeding and monarchy
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
There's no doubt in my mind that the average human in Western society today is more intelligent than the average human at any other time in history; mainly due to standard of living maximising development through childhood and adolescence.
Define intelligent.

Just about everyone outside of the west believes global warming is our most pressing issue, just about everyone inside the west have been doing their best to stop them doing something about it.
 
Define intelligent.

Just about everyone outside of the west believes global warming is our most pressing issue, just about everyone inside the west have been doing their best to stop them doing something about it.

Western definition.
 
Jul 25, 2010
2,182
1,206
AFL Club
Geelong
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.

You don't understand natural selection.

There's no objective measure of strength/fitness. It's all dependent on the environment. If "weaker" bones (let's say bones that more easily break) are somehow better suited to reproduction in a given environment than "strong bones" (bones which are harder to break), the weaker bones are stronger/fitter in an evolutionary sense.
 
Back