Has our BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ended?

[sman]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The integrity of our genome is falling to pieces as we let every imaginable genetic oddity carry on into the next generation. And we have effectively removed all environmental selection filters. In other words, Evolution has stopped for the human race. There are no selection filters in place.

I think sexual selection is still operating even if natural selection has been halted by medicine, but the products of sexual selection are chaotic and probably outside of whats being reffered to as "evolution" here.

By the way, this statement should only apply to the developed world. Let's not forget that much of the world today is still subject to some selection that internet users are not.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by freeztar

That has been done. Viruses and other external stimuli force populations to evolve. This has never changed.

The effect mentioned above can clearly be seen by monitoring multiple generations of bacteria and their reactions to antibiotics.

The human immune system is similar. Some people die from diseases, some do not. Through multiple generations of sexual selection, the genes responsible for the particular ailment are either eradicated, or significantly reduced. That is evolution!

That's a bit like asking, "How can you possibly envision a staircase when you can only see a couple steps".

The problem here is that you see only a few of the steps. You see viruses affecting human immunity, but that changes with one race and group or another all the time but does not affect the ability of any people to advance civilization. It is a millions of years-long progress that has had no significant effect on the total human race in the last 40,000 years. You cannot seem to see that natural selection is going on much faster between the ideological systems that bind people into groups, nations and societies or their civilizations. That has replaced the pathetically small biological evolution you see as a few steps. It accounts for the rise and fall of civilizations.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by lemit

Charles, Are you saying that to make you consider changing your views, all we have to do is to chronicle 40,000 years of human history, listing each mutation and providing supporting data?

Is that all? I'd do that right now, except that something has come up. Sorry. Maybe next week.--lemit p.s. Maybe not.

I am certainly glad you have not taken up that challenge!! LOL I would not have the time to read it!

No, but I've done it with the main changes using ideological systems and the natural selection process going on between them to explain the gross changes in both history and prehistory. Do you really think you could explain history (if you did have the time and were amply paid!) using genetic mutations as the causation????

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by charles brough

The problem here is that you see only a few of the steps. You see viruses affecting human immunity, but that changes with one race and group or another all the time but does not affect the ability of any people to advance civilization. It is a millions of years-long progress that has had no significant effect on the total human race in the last 40,000 years. You cannot seem to see that natural selection is going on much faster between the ideological systems that bind people into groups, nations and societies or their civilizations. That has replaced the pathetically small biological evolution you see as a few steps. It accounts for the rise and fall of civilizations.

Just to be clear, I'm not in disagreement about the profound effect that human civilization has had on the advancement of our species. I'm simply disagreeing with the thread title. It seems you are as well when you say, "It is a millions of years-long progress that has had no significant effect on the total human race in the last 40,000 years". It's implicit that you concede that biological evolution has never stopped, but argue that its effect is insignificant.

So, a better question might be, "How significant is biological evolution?" or "Does Social Evolution trump Biological evolution?".

[lemit]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Just to be clear, I'm not in disagreement about the profound effect that human civilization has had on the advancement of our species. I'm simply disagreeing with the thread title. It seems you are as well when you say, "It is a millions of years-long progress that has had no significant effect on the total human race in the last 40,000 years". It's implicit that you concede that biological evolution has never stopped, but argue that its effect is insignificant.

So, a better question might be, "How significant is biological evolution?" or "Does Social Evolution trump Biological evolution?".

Thank you. I've felt for a long time that we've been arguing about usage instead of substance. I'm just too dumb (science dumb) to be able to say it.

But there might be another level. It might be that all change must be filtered through biology. In other words--in fact in words that have been used in this thread many times--no matter what the cause, the effect is still going to be biological. I don't quite see that in your post. Am I missing something, am I just continuing to be science dumb, or do we still need to address the fact (yes, fact as in actuality, not just a piece of information) that all effects on human biology are still effects on biology?

I'm beginning to feel like I can't write the English language anymore. The idea that biological effects aren't biological effects but instead are social effects is just confusing to me. If our genetic profile is changed, that can't ever be sociology; it must always be biology.

Sorry for the rant. I think I'm just tired of the concept that the effects to this dead horse that we've been beating--let's see, the effects would be bacterial and possibly fungal(?)--I just don't see how these effects can possibly be social. I think the maggots on the horse have already become flies and have flown away. I don't know why we can't move on too.

Sorry, Freeztar. This isn't really directed at you. You just happen to be in the line of fire.

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by lemit

Charles,

Are you saying that to make you consider changing your views, all we have to do is to chronicle 40,000 years of human history, listing each mutation and providing supporting data?

Is that all? I'd do that right now, except that something has come up. Sorry. Maybe next week.

--lemit

p.s. Maybe not.

some of these have been listed on other threads
"Darwin revisted" perhaps.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by lemit

Thank you. I've felt for a long time that we've been arguing about usage instead of substance. I'm just too dumb (science dumb) to be able to say it.

It's indeed hard to argue substance when the terms used are inaccurate or poorly defined.

But there might be another level. It might be that all change must be filtered through biology. In other words--in fact in words that have been used in this thread many times--no matter what the cause, the effect is still going to be biological. I don't quite see that in your post. Am I missing something, am I just continuing to be science dumb, or do we still need to address the fact (yes, fact as in actuality, not just a piece of information) that all effects on human biology are still effects on biology?

I agree with this of course. Changes to our genome are certainly biological effects, regardless of their beginnings.

I'm beginning to feel like I can't write the English language anymore. The idea that biological effects aren't biological effects but instead are social effects is just confusing to me. If our genetic profile is changed, that can't ever be sociology; it must always be biology.

No need to fear, you've got it right.

Sorry, Freeztar. This isn't really directed at you. You just happen to be in the line of fire.

It's cool. Just remember that no one is firing here.

I think it is safe to say that social evolution can profoundly impact biological evolution. This is not to say that social evolution can trump biological evolution though. Then again, maybe it will one day and we'll all be greek-character caste-members in a "Brave New World".

[Essay]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I think it is safe to say that social evolution can profoundly impact biological evolution. This is not to say that social evolution can trump biological evolution though. Then again, maybe it will one day and we'll all be greek-character caste-members in a "Brave New World".

Originally Posted by BNW

"Roof!" He flung open the gates. The warm glory of afternoon sunlight made ... "Oh, roof!" he repeated in a voice of rapture.

~

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Just to be clear, I'm not in disagreement about the profound effect that human civilization has had on the advancement of our species. I'm simply disagreeing with the thread title. It seems you are as well when you say, "It is a millions of years-long progress that has had no significant effect on the total human race in the last 40,000 years". It's implicit that you concede that biological evolution has never stopped, but argue that its effect is insignificant.

So, a better question might be, "How significant is biological evolution?" or "Does Social Evolution trump Biological evolution?".

You have put that all very well and I understand what you are saying. It is just that I think a little differently than you. I think about it and realize I cannot think of anything that has come to a complete and total end. To say something has ended means it has ended "for all practical purposes." We live in an un-arbitrary world in which all is relative.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Natural selection has not been tested in the last 40,000 years in the case with humans.

Medicine has allowed some genes to remain in the population.

We need some extreme Virus or bacteria to kill off the many so that the few can go on with the genes.

Maybe extreme radiation, a few coments .

The few mutations have not been allowed to breed.

So all in all we are heading OK.