Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Farmerman wrote:

The note proposed that we be called H sapiens evolutus,, as we are on the cusp of being able to actually "artificially select" for traits and positive aspects of our genotype.

That's what I'm interested in: in which ways, "artificial selection" will impact our evolution.

1 Reply

Ros wrote:

In evolution, genetic "quality" is measured by reproductive success.

What happens when every member of a society has had reproductive success?

Does it mean that the number of breeds matters?

From an evolutionary pov are numerous poor health breeds more worth that one healthy breed?

In ancient times, nature would take care of this. But now, with our sophisticated post birth care, all poor health breeds are viable.

Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

and wrote:

We have no genetic probe to test our potential mates, so the only other method is to emotionally associate genetic "quality" to various aspects of physical appearance and behavior, and we call this beauty.

and wrote:

We might ask if modern society can make itself compatible with the fact of evolution.

I find these two assertions highly contradictory.

It's as if you presuppose the dynamics of evolution will stay the way they were for millenia.

I believe evolution, as suggested by the very noun, is not an immutable fact.

2 Replies

Edgar wrote:

Men may be fascinated by women's beauty, but if you look around enough, you will see many ugly wives out there. Beauty may play a big part for many men, but surely not all of them. I have not made a study of this, but many mates and mothers are less than plain.

I've been looking at that for years, Edgar! Twisted Evil

But I came to the conclusion that it's because beauty is not available for everybody.

1 Reply

Set wrote:

If a culture were to decide that narrow hips on women were "beautiful," evolutionary forces would take care of that **** right quick.

As it happens in our present society, I'm eager to know how evolutionary forces will deal with such trends.

Still, in the US, males are obssessed with the volume of mammary appendages, which is a good indicators of women ability to rear children.

However, studies I can cite if needed, show that such volume is not necessary for successfully breeding children.

1 Reply

@Francis,

Humans have evolved emotionally as well as intellectually (they're tied together much more than most people realize) and are most likely going to select a partner of similar attractiveness standards. That's a complicated psychology that also has to take into consideration that one falls in love with the inside of a person as well as the outside. Shallowness, ego, and vanity enters into the equation and, obviously, ethics as money can sometimes buy the partner one desires. Thus, the trophy wife (although that has a lot to do with a female's desire for sercurity which can be a component of love, something that may never be completely understood, at least in our lifetime). Of course, evolution has left us with remnants of a repitilian brain which is very territorial and can manifest itself in providing financial security over emotional security to protect that territory, which includes one's chosen partner.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

That's what I'm interested in: in which ways, "artificial selection" will impact our evolution.

I dont know. Im not sure anyone does. We may soon be able to artificially select for certain environmental trits that, if left to reproduce naturally may (or may not) endure in the phenotype. For example SHirpa lung capacity is afew hundred generational micro adaptation that may or may not endure at sea level.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

If this is the extent of your knowledge and understanding of my vague questions, you better restrain from uttering such gibberish..

Funny, all I essentially stated was what rosborne just asked you, but rather than giving examples I attempted to directly describe it.

But please, expose your douchebaggery a little more.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

Is the evolution theory, in its current dynamics, still compatible with modern societies?

Yes. Evolutionary theory, meaning the bulk statement of evolution and the general theories (like natural selection, drift, etc) absolutely hold for modern societies (their populations). Teasing out which parts are directly applicable to the specific ideas, however, can be more difficult depending on the subject. You ask about modern societies - list some of the qualities you're thinking of when you mention them. Are you thinking of particular social organizations, like totalitarniasm vs. democracy? Or something more direct, like how people interact (and your question about "beauty"?)?

It's clear that evolutionary theory does apply to our current population. Identifying what pressures are selective, however, is not always clear.

Please commence acting like a douche. Apparently I can't attempt to answer your (still vague) questions without insults.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

James Watson, the famous provocateur scientist, likes to talk about engineering the sexiest ladies we can. People laugh at him now mostly because he's old, but in terms of the technology he's probably not that far off in general terms.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If a culture were to decide that narrow hips on women were "beautiful," evolutionary forces would take care of that **** right quick.

Always an interesting topic. In normal conditions, those narrower hips would definitely be a huge problem (women had huge problems with birth in general before proper medicine came about), but now that we have cesarian sections and such, in a rich society where such procedures are close to 'free' or at least a necessary cost which can be met, the selection against them isn't as easy to see.

Regarding facial structure, there are still some pretty definite sexual cues. Non-insignificant asymmetry is universally abhorred, and it's not hard to speculate on why: the basis for general symmetry begins early in ontogeny and someone with a seirously asymmetrical face would either have been seriously injured, had an environmentally-disrupted development, or possess genes that affected such an early point in development (with consequences throughout the body).

That's a bit o' evolutionary contingency impinging itself on mate selection, namely bilateral symmetry and everything that has been built on it in the millions and millions of years since it arose. You're right that a lot of what we consider to be beauty is socialized into us, but there are a few things and generalizations that hold.

1 Reply

Shira wrote:

Apparently I can't attempt to answer your (still vague) questions without insults.

No, you can't.

As so, I would be pleased if you can go play elsewhere, sparing me the pain of being bullied...

2 Replies

@Francis,

Tough luck.

It's extremely difficult to predict where the ability to artificially select for culturally- or medically-desired traits will take us. Any predictions going into the significant future would have problems to deal with outside of the incredibly difficult task of figuring out which things to artificially change: we wouldn't know if the technology or means would even stay with us. Economic progress is not guaranteed, so neither would be the technology supported by our modern economies.

If we ignore all that and pretend that the technology would be universal, there would still be ethical questions to deal with and certainly a lot of conservative opposition to using the technology. Less offensive selection would surely change the population in some ways, though... we would be able, for instance, to erase a number of human genetic diseases like Huntington's Chorea. We're already close to being able to easily screen for it. Heck, this stuff is moving so fast it may already be possible.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Wait, are you telling me that *I* am insulting you? LOL.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Set wrote:
If a culture were to decide that narrow hips on women were "beautiful," evolutionary forces would take care of that **** right quick.

As it happens in our present society, I'm eager to know how evolutionary forces will deal with such trends.

It's quite simple, really--women whose hips are insufficiently wide, meaning that their pelvic girdle is not as wide, will consequently have a more restricted birth canal. It will cause problems in delivering children, so that women who have a wide pelvic girdle will be more likely to successfully reproduce than those who don't. It can also lead to damage to the birth canal, making it less likely that women built in that manner will be able to bear children again. In industrial societies, of course, the quality of medical care services means that women who don't have wide pelvic girdles are probably going to be able to bear children; although the problem with possible damage to the birth canal will still be present, and it will still be probable that such women will be able to bear fewer childre.

Still and all, most of the world does not live in industrial societies. So in most of the world, women with wide hips have a better breeding opportunity--a better opportunity to reproduce themselves.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

?

Does it mean that the number of breeds matters?

From an evolutionary pov are numerous poor health breeds more worth that one healthy breed?
In ancient times, nature would take care of this. But now, with our sophisticated post birth care, all poor health breeds are viable.
Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

First off, you are talking about a MAlthusian systematic that underpins all of Darwin. Living things always over reproduce wrt the carrying capacity. Also, the populations with the lowest life expectancy are the same populations wherein the birth rates are highest. With modern medicine we see the increase of occurence of all kinds of genetic defects that were winnowed out by an organisms inability to compete prior to breeding. (eg, eyesight problems, congenital defects, etc). These are probably not increasing in percentages but in pure numbers they are significant.

Quote:

What happens when every member of a society has had reproductive success

This doesnt happen as a strict case. A society or freely interbreeding population merely keeps growing until its carrying capacity is met and the population regulates itself or is trimmed by diseases, natural disasters. ect. The number of winnowing events merely become more significant as the population infills its entire geographic range (think Phuket in 2004, or Bangladesh in every monsoon or typhun, e have entire populations , millions strong living at the base of Vesuvius , Pinatubo, and Chimbaratso).

As Raup called it"BAD LUCK OR BAD GENES?"

I for one, am not a fan of any kind of eugenics , but some governments have endorsed such programs into the present day(intercultural or interreligious war is actually eugenics to me)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I didnt abandon this thread, we just went out for the evening and returned rather late.

Who accused you of abandoning the thread effemm? I didn't notice that.

Did Mr Guthrie discuss the frightening aspects of beauty. It is a human concept. There is no such thing beyond humanity. One hardly needs his blather when the Venus of Willendorf is there for all of us to meditate upon.

Did they have marriage in the paleolithic? The biology suggests that the "buttered bun" was more in vogue in those days.

I could comment on the monk who coined the term big bang or the escapades of Don Juan. I felt it was impolite. Would you like me to?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

I have not made a study of this, but many mates and mothers are less than plain.

Yes Ed- it does make one wonder a bit.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

"tracks" eh Set. That's pretty satirical.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

Should we envision then some kind of eugenics, in order to satisfy the evolution theory?

Of course we should. The scientific logic is inexorable. Why do you think I fight against it. There's nothing in Darwin to resist.

Quote:

I believe evolution, as suggested by the very noun, is not an immutable fact.

So do I. It is thought to be to save mental effort and facing reality.

1 Reply

@Shirakawasuna,

Quote:

women had huge problems with birth in general before proper medicine came about

Where did you get a silly idea like that from? Was it from the medical profession who wanted to scare the ladies into their clutches?

What a gump you are Shira. They have them in taxis. One I read about in a toilet. You haven't read Tolstoy or Howard Hughes. Go and peddle your fearmongering where ladies don't go. Making them nervous is not required.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know