What is Digg?220 Comments
- miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -9/+109I think most of you are misinterpreting the article (if you even bothered to read it). By saving those that otherwise would have died through medicine, we slow down or limit evolution's ability to progress the human species. I'm not saying that we should let people die, but from a purely objective standpoint, modern medicine has changed natural selection to unnatural selection.
- Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+64I thought this was common sense. Obviously when you eliminate natural selection this happens.
- LucerinRed, on 10/12/2007, -4/+57just get rid of the dating websites and take the warning labels off of everything and eventually then the problem will solve itself, we'll go right back to natural selection
- AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+57@kalpeshsharma
"Why dnt u ppl realise that evolution is an obsolete hypothesis with no evidence to support it. Get over it."
Why don't you:
A) Learn to type in complete words. "dnt" is not a word. "u" is not a word. "ppl" is not a word. Get over it.
B) Get your information from a unbiased source. The Conservpedia has an agenda, and is *not* a reliable source of unbiased information. In fact, the discussion page on the Evolution article states, and I quote: "we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." Get over it. - jguy584, on 10/12/2007, -2/+49Humans have indeed slowed evolution with the use of modern medicine.
However soon evolution will start happening in leaps and bounds, via genetic engineering.
Humanity is in the process of taking evolution into its own hands, which probably isn't a good idea in the greater scheme of things. - micropizzle, on 10/12/2007, -11/+56Wasn't this the idea Hitler had with his extermination of the mentally impaired and the chronically ill?
- coolian, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43@kalpeshsharma
You are proof that monkeys can write, although that is open to debate. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38miles is correct, in fact human evolution could even be considered to be going backwards, at least in the physical build of people in industrialized countries. We as a speicies are weaker physically then ever before and it is an ongoing trend.
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35This article is far too narrow minded. Popular among evolutionary biologists at the moment is the idea of punctuated equilibrium. That is, species tend to evolve towards some kind of stable equilibrium where each individual is well adapted to its ecosystem, most mutations have negative effects, and evolutionary change ceases to occur. The population of the species will remain more or less constant for a long time until some major change to the ecosystem takes place (environmental change, extinction of a food source or competitor, introduction of a new species, disease, etc) which causes selection pressure to change radically, killing off most of the population and leaving a subset which is significantly different to the old population. Then, the new population evolves gradually towards a new equilibrium which best suits the environment around it.
You could argue that humans have reached such an equilibrium. Certainly, we're very well supported by our environment (largely because as urban dwellers we create our own ecosystem), so there's very little pressure for change. Having said that, our world has changed so radically in just the last 100 years it's absolutely impossible to tell what the long term effects will be on our species. Of course, you can imagine how drastic global climate change could alter our equilibrium and cause a great deal of evolutionary change to occur. - OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -12/+38What a moronic claim. Are people still different? Are some of these differences heritable? Do some of those heritable traits lead to differential reproductive success? If so, then we are still subject to natural selection, and that means we're still evolving. We haven't stalled human evolution, we've merely changed the parameters by which it operates.
- Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Instead of evolving ourselves, we evolve our technology. So instead of only a select number of our offspring benefitting from survival of the fittest, we all benefit by developing new technology that makes us all live longer and healthier. I like our way better.
- TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Evolution hasn't stopped with medicine, because natural selection has only been one component of evolution. Sexual selection within a species is probably a greater factor in evolution.
And natural selection is still in force even with medicine, as our greatest predator is still disease.
Pick up a copy of Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen". The Theory of Evolution has progressed in fascinating ways in the past 30 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_queen - Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Pft.
Medicine has become a part of the environment in which many humans exist. The presence of medicine, thus, is an environmental factor that may affect reproductive success in that its presence may confer an increased probability of reproduction to a number of genetic makeups within the species.
Medicine isn't "stalling" evolution. It, like all other environmental factors, is influencing the direction by ultimately modifying in some way the overall genetic diversity and range of the population of the species. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Exactly. People like to anthropomorphize evolution, as if it has some way to distinguish between "natural" and "artificial" environmental pressures. The only way that we can stop evolution is to start reproducing exclusively through cloning.
- captjc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"I'd like to call it 'devolution'."
Q. Are We Not Men?
A. We are DEVO! - Gadren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I think that articles like this one misinterpret what evolution is really about. Evolution isn't like a ladder, with a "next step" in evolution. Fish aren't "more evolved" than humans because humans aren't the end goal of evolution. Evolution is more like a tree, with fish and humans being different twigs on that tree. The purpose of evolution is to create gene machines that are best able to self-replicate.
If anything, humans are becoming more "evolved" by adapting to a new environment where health is more guaranteed. - Justavian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I remember making this argument when i was a kid - it is a fairly intuitive stance. We're keeping alive people who would not normally be "fit" enough to survive. Then i read The Selfish Gene, and i understood what was really happening. Disadvantages, even when moderated by medicine, will still tend to be eliminated over time. People who need glasses might only be .005% more likely to die before the reproduce, but that's enough to eliminate that gene from the population over the course of thousands of generations (assuming that gene isn't also associated with something that aids in survival).
For those of you who haven't read The Selfish Gene - here's an interesting concept: We are all merely elaborate protection devices constructed by our genes to keep them alive! In the early days of life, mutations resulted in self-replicating molecules constructing protein shells, and other means of protection. We are the equivalent, taken to an extreme. We are machines that our genes construct to more effectively gather the resources they require to replicate, and to protect them from the environment and from predators. - kevlarbaboon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Precisely. There's no goal here, evolution really hasn't "stalled." We as organisms have learned to effectively control our environment and health, disrupting a possible uniform nature to the way certain organisms may develop. In no way is this negative, we are improving our species' situation by extending lives. I don't see anything unnatural about it. We have simply attained an intellect where we can change things. We are naturally part of the world too. Nothing truly happens "unnaturally", our work is nature in itself the same way as a dung beetle rolling around is.
- edz0nk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13@kalpeshsharma
http://www.conservpedia.com/skins/common/images/conservlogo.png
Is my new IM avatar, thanks for bringing it to my attention. It was a real "wow" moment
when i saw the site, hilariously retarded.
Is it not time to stop and think about what you believe when you have to start alternative sites to
spread your "truth", scary and funny at the same time.
From the "about conservapedia" page;
"Our study suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public."
Interesting study, I wonder if they can figure out how many times more liberal I am,
being a left wing Swede should get me at least a 9. - psygnisfive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Theres something more to consider as well:
Evolution is a side effect of our genes' nature as replicators. Things evolve because change in the genes produces a higher likelihood that those very genes will survive (or those genes vanish from the population entirely). The genome as a whole often has different competing genes, and the overall effect on survivability is what determines how the genome will survive. Humans have gotten to the point where we can survive far better than any animal in nature, thanks to our ability to create ad hoc adaptations. While some animals die in extreme heat, we simply turn on the AC. While some die in the freezing cold, we build warm houses and put on extra clothes. While no animal can survive in space, we built space ships and space suits. We can turn the desert into farmland when we need more food, rather than starving because our food supply is dwindling. We have gotten to the point where our survival is enhanced by our intelligence not our physical endurance. Whether or not our bodies become frail, as depicted in some scifi stories, is irrelevant, because that's only one part of how a species survives. It has become near impossible to kill of the human species: even if noone on the planet existed, we're nearing the point where we our technology will let us create artificial wombs and generate diverse genomes from scratch, so that automated systems could recreate the human species.
So perhaps indeed our genetic evolution has stalled, because our genome has reached an ideal state of being impossible to destroy. But that's a good thing. - grav80bong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@micropizzle
"Wasn't this the idea Hitler had with his extermination of the mentally impaired and the chronically ill?"
It was one of his ideas. Another was to selectively breed and wipe out other races to create a homogeneous population. The article marks us as compassionate hypocrites; Hitler was a cruel hypocrite: let (manually exterminate) the weak thus not playing god...and selectively breed and annihilate thus playing god. - Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I think this is called "The American Idol Effect," isn't it?
- Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If anything it is at least slowing down evolution in the big picture. When you have the ability to prolong the lives of people with genetic deficiencies long enough for them to reproduce, you are severely limiting natural selection. If anything our species is slowly de-evolving due to the ability of genetic screw ups to survive and propagate.
- TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It's amazing to see digg's users simultaneously advocate evolution by natural selection and understand it so poorly.
For those willing to brush up on the subject try:
Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" or "The Ancestor's Tale"
Or Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen - TrevorBradley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"we really know very little about evolution's ultimate or absolute function."
Evolution has no ultimate or absolute function. It is merely a byproduct of natural selection. It's all about which "selfish gene" is able to replicate itself in a superior fashion to others.
I'm firmly in the evolution camp, but I'm very happy that humans as a species have been able to break out of the cycle of evolution. The alternative is too nasty to contemplate. - bjohns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I suggest people read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, specifically the chapter on Memes. Human ideas are more important than whether or not someone has cancer, diabetes, and all the other "medical conditions too numerous to mention here that were once fatal to humans."
I understand where the author is coming from, but at what point would we stop medical treatment?
I would be curious to see how the author would feel if he was stricken with cancer. - AnteChronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@wonderchemist
That ignores the possibility of random mutations, though. As long as there is reproduction, and as long as our genetic code is subjected to random mutations, then evolution will keep right on going. - WoodenKimono, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5evolution still occurs because there is still random mutation. We are still broadening the genetic diversity of the human species. Broader diversity results in greater resilience to unknown threats, but because of this broad diversity there is an increase in deleterious genes. That said when natural selection resumes these will quickly be eliminated.
- OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I fail to see the purpose of playing god by advocating eugenics.
It is highly unlikely that humanity will exist in, say, 200,000 years. Even if we could keep our species around for one million years, either artificially or naturally, what is the point? It's not like we, as a species, have even been able to come up with a purpose for ourselves, other than to simply survive.
I'm of the opinion that quality of life should take precedence over quantity. Via a hyperlink, the author implies that people with Down's Syndrome should be euthanized. I know from personal experience that such people are capable not only of experiencing happiness and compassion, but also of inspiring it in others.
Who can say what effect any one person will have on the world? Who can say what effect the *absence* of an individual will have on the course of history? For all any of us know, it might be a diabetic, paralyzed, blind, or retarded person who inspires the next Einstein to develop the secret to genetic perfection and immortality. That is a feat which evolution is not guaranteed to do. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If the preservation of the species as a whole is the goal, then I believe science and medicine are more capable than natural selection. Science can potentially stop a meteor from smashing into the earth and killing us all. Evolution takes far too long to make us impervious to something like that (if it could even do it at all). However, someone like Stephen Hawking might be the genius that saves us; and the author says we should kill him because people like him dilute the fitness of the species. Go figure. - AnotherAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The title is almost right, Human selection has stalled. Evolution however continues to occur.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The next step in evolution is artificial intelligence.
- x0nIMIn0x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This entire argument is flawed and is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. There is no end goal to our evolution, and certainly no natural rate of progress that we as a species should be measuring ourselves against.
As long as humans have babies, we are evolving as a species. While it's true that the role of natural selection has been greatly altered by our medical science and technology, and we posses sophisticated cultural systems of ethics (concerning individual liberty, justice, and the morality of death, for example) that would likely not exist in a society of of less social or less intelligent animals, we are still engaged in the process of choosing some traits over others due to the localization of specific populations, environmental factors, and everyone's favorite - sexual selection.
After many generations some characteristics may shift in our genome. That is the nature of sexual reproduction and the complex influences that might guide certain trends in selection over time. But to say that in the future we won't have evolved into something more advanced than what we are now because we've somehow tampered with the forces of evolution by treating diseases or lengthening the lifespan of the individual is science fiction.
You could make the argument that the opposite is true. If we still lived today the way we did 100,000 years (or more) ago, it is likely that we would stay roughly the same as our species ages, as the evolutionary pressures on the human animal to pass its genetic code to its offspring quickly, before dying of disease at a young age, would continue to be a primary factor in selecting which humans are successful in passing down their genes.
A trait like intelligence isn't linked to early sexual maturity or resistance to disease, so by minimizing those influences we increase the odds that genes linked to high intelligence will be passed on to a higher number of offspring. Therefore, the chances that humans in future (after many generations) will evolve to have greater mental capacities is increased through our medicine and technology. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4^^Although phrased in a stupid way, it summarizes exactly why evolution via natural selection isn't that of a big deal to humanity anymore, a more complex evolution has already taken the helm (technological/cultural, the evolution of ideas)....
- AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9i hope for kalephwhatever's sake he was being sarcastic, and if he was, he needs to be much more sarcastic so people can tell.
But I agree with the article for the most part. As medicine gets better, we start ending survival of the fittest for the particular ailment that medicine cured or helped sustain the life of the person affected. Eugenics is awful but it has advantages in the long-run, just look at the 300 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Evolution (as it operates in large populations) is EXTRAORDINARILY complex and it is impossible to reduce it to a few paragraphs whipped up by some kid who probably doesn't even know you need complex math to even begin to really understand the process.
- W00DR0W, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is sort of like saying the world is flat, just because you can't see over the horizon doesn't mean nothing beyond it exists.
- loker269, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4correct we live longer but suffer from diseases brought on by that old age that our ancestors would have rarely if ever dealt with because of the fact they only lived to be half as old as us....
- inhaler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the real question is in how we're going to get over the hurdle of educating everyone that it is a process that exists. Keep in mind we have individuals who are running for elective office who still consider the Earth only 6,000 years old and that man was literally spawned from the will of an omnipotent perfect being. The same people who would consider the fossil record as a deception by Satan.
- cp101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is the first thing people discover when they get stoned at like 13, or whatever...
Obviously not enough people light up doobies in this world. - ire1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Thats nutrition, not evolution.
- sharmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree that IQs are increasing through human evolution. However, the fact remains that there is an undeniable sub-replacement fertility among the educated. With the current trend the pool humans with increasing intelligence is getting smaller, not larger on the whole (and the opposite is true for the less educated). Don't ask me how this fits in with evolution, it's just an observation.
- notmark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@racerx
Just to add a little to your post: Humans are sexually mature by 12-15. Heart disease, most forms of cancer, even diabetes will not affect people that early in life. In addition, most diseases that should be fatal, such as juvenile leukemia, will have treatments that leave the person sterile. This article is 80% ***** and 20% misplaced eugenics. - SquigglyP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4A lot of you are missing the point. People are being born with defects. Minor defects, that modern medicine fixes and these people go on to live 'normal' lives. They then breed, and the slot machine of life re-uses the parent's genes and alters them slightly. Maybe the defect disappears. Maybe it shows up. Maybe it's worse. If so, Medicine fixes it again. How long before it becomes 'normal' to HAVE to have some kind of corrective surgery in order to survive. Before a majority of people begin showing up with serious physical 'defects'.
It's not really something we can fix, but it's probably going to happen. That was the whole point of Gattica. Someone mentioned that flick earlier. It wasn't a movie that was supposed to be controversial because of genetically altered babies. The point of it is that eventually, there will probably be a movement or a concern about discrimination of people based on genetic history. It is inevitable that religious discrimination will be replaced with genetic discrimination. It's the only logical outcome for a society that replaces religion with science. We should still replace religion with science, tho. At least then we'll know we ***** ourselves up, and won't try to use god's wrath as an excuse. - gradeahonky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is a really popular yet dim view of evolution. Evolution isn't about the fate of the individual, and how kick ass that individual is, its about the species. Our species evolved enough brains to start remembering stuff so we learned how to take care of ourselves better. This made it so that an individual could contribute even if they can't survive in nature.
Beethoven was deaf, and that's certain death in the animal world. But lamenting that he didn't die to further evolution is stupid, because he furthered music and human society so much. Stephen Hawkins should be exterminated by this theory, but because there is a powerful mind connected to his weakened body, he can do amazing things for humanity. Most of the nerds who invented the internet wear glasses (I'm guessing), but their digital contribution is much more important than their genetic contribution.
See what I mean? Evolution has gotten past keeping every individual super fit, because it found a better more useful alternative: our brains. Evolution is more complicated than "the slower one gets eaten by the tiger and doesn't have kids." It plays the odds. The idea of devolution doesn't even make sense. Evolution always happens to further fit the environment. Always. Bad eyes genes are not being filtered as much because they don't matter as much. Where as whatever gene lets kids sit still and take notes in school, or keep out of jail, or not drink and drive will flourish. (And yeah, I know those three traits don't have specific genes attached to them, but you get my jist). - pmiguel85, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Evolution doesn't necessarily have to involve adding or modifying information stored in the chemical bonds of DNA. Since the advent of written language, humankind has passed on a great deal of its survival information through words. Survival mechanisms and adaptations don't have to become instincts to be useful to future generations. I can take advantage of an adaptation to a selective niche simply by building a cotton gin or making a sandwich. I have no sandwich-making instinct, yet culture that stretches across many generations with the help of the written word allows me to take advantage of the original invention of the sandwich.
- fieryprophet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What I always find intriguingly about arguments for the "advancement of mankind" is that nobody can give me a convincing reason that humanity deserves to exist indefinitely. I know some people will cringe at this analogy, but humanity may well be the "Borg" of the universe, always altering its surroundings to suit its own pleasures with little regard to the wholesale destruction and destitution that it leaves behind.
The whole way that we could morally right our own wrongs is by using the ingenuity granted us to fix the mess we've made, without resorting to "Darwinian" primitiveness. - patarkan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3written by my friend Lionel
Okay - here's my problem with this jackass.
1. He is almost certainly a conservative, or a far right enough
Libertarian that he could wear a conservative's pants (for a clue, most
people who aren't suffering a daily inculcation of Limbaugh or Dennis
Miller don't use the phrase 'politically correct' in our conversation
or emails, much less use it three times in a short essay;
2. He is obviously a social Darwinist;
3. I thought the conservative movement these days didn't believe in
Darwin, Darwinism, evolution, etc.?
4. I also thought the movement was adamantly opposed to abortion,
which seems pretty much akin to his suggestions of leaving the
unwanted 'inferior' child on the side of a mountain (just a few - or
several - months before it actually gets here);
5. If he truly believes in 'survival of the fittest', then who lives
and who dies should be determined by hand-to-hand blood combat to the
death in an iron cage, Roman Colosseum, or far off sandy planet that
happens to have the raw materials laying around from which one can
fashion gunpowder and a primitive bazooka (in case you find yourself
fighting a Gorn). I suspect this guy will not make it out of the first
round. He will likely not even make it to the 'play-in' game;
6. Pick a philosophy and stick to it: if you choose 'survival of the
species at all costs', then by all means don't limit yourself to
pulling the plug on cripples, old ladies, and clarinet players.
Because it is evident that eventually - no matter how long you string
out the curve - population will outstrip resources, go ahead and start
mass murdering people now. Avoid using your nuclear weapons, lest you
find yourself fighting for your own survival with a giant mutated
lizard (See 'Gorn', supra);
7. For that matter, if he really wants to 'boost' human evolution,
start throwing people off cliffs - the ones who have the latent,
genetic talent to fly will survive and reproduce. Or hold them
underwater: the Aquamen (and Aquachicks) will survive, fluorish, and
live in evolved peace with Charlie the Tuna, whilst the rest will see
their gene pool ... well, drown in a pool.
8. And if his theory is right - that current medicines, treatments,
and - read between the lines - welfare programs for people not as
genetically advanced as the author, are what has caused human evolution
to 'stall', then shouldn't the last 200,000 years or so of humans
stomping around without benefit of health plans, viagra, or seat belts,
have produced a race of superintelligent, telepathic, flying, web-
spinning, Ubermen? Shouldn't we have already evolved into those guys
with the big heads that keep Captain Pike in a cave with the fake hot
chick? Are Britney Spears and Dick Cheney really the best that we can
do? The fact remains that generations of access to only the best
schools, best food, best genes (as in hottest princesses), and best
martial training has failed in Britain to produce anything better than
a middle-aged guy who croaks to his lover on a cellphone that
he'd "like to be her tampon"?
I suspect - no, I HOPE - this guy is some dweeby sixteen year old
who's just gotten ahold of his first Ayn Rand book. Then at least he's
got a chance - in maybe ten or fifteen years - of getting laid by a one-
armed blind girl with a cleft palate (after he uses his superior
genetic makeup to get her drunk) and he'll stop writing such patently
stupid crap. - rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Spot on. A lot of people here seem to think that evolution means "improvement", but evolution simply means "change", and you can't stop change.
Disappointing to read so many misconceptions in a site where people defend evolution so fiercely! - fieryprophet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Very true. Why do we exist, anyways? This may sound heretical to some, but if there is no God or purpose or reason to life, and no ultimate goal for humanity, then the slide into pure hedonism that we're experiencing now is as good a future as any.
- Racerx52, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't understand the article at all. What it suggested to me was that people pass on inferior genes throughout their lives.
Well... I am under the impression most people have children in their 20's mid 30's. Most people are healthiest then. Only later in their lives do they turn out to have diabetes or cancer or some other horrible ailment. (Excluding of course the occasions of childhood diabetes and rare forms of childhood cancers)
So by going with this info, people in their late lives, Lets say 60's to 70's. Their ailments DIRECTLY affect their already live children in their 30's-40's. Uh... No.
It doesn't make sense to me. The genes are already there, and may have been there since their great-great-great-grandparents. It's, to me, That people are just getting the chance to live longer, the older we get the weaker we are, of course, That just gives the genes of our ancestors the chance to deform or lose a piece of DNA here or there, Then it would make perfect sense that our cells would malfunction to produce cancers and other terminal illnesses.
My .02 -
Show 51 - 100 of 217 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 