Humans stop evolving?

[Michaelangelica]

bump
Where is the more recent thread on this?
O well I'll post it in Darwin re-visited.

[learnin to learn]

The difference between humans and other animals is the soul. While other animals select their mates because of their traits, we select our mates because of love. In today's society there is no such thing as survival of the fitest. Those who are too weak to make it on the world can go to doctors who will give them some medicene that makes them better. What humans are known for is their adaptations to different climates and environments. No matter where you go, some one will be living there. Now for my question. Is adaptation to the environment in which you live considered a type of evolution? Also, what do you consider evolution?

[Pyrotex]

Sorry, L2L, but survival of the fittest cannot be avoided. The only thing that changes is the definition of "fit".
If cattle are being bred for large roasts, then having a large roast makes an individual steer "fit".
If men and women are being "selected" for their ability to recognize and return love, then those abilities make the individuals "fit".

You cannot, even in principal, avoid biological evolution. All you can do is modify some of the definitions of "fit". And not even ALL of those.

WHATEVER reason two humans come together and make a baby... love, lust, opportunity, beer, calculated self-interest, bad habits, extortion, carelessness, curiosity... then THAT is what is being selected for in that instance, and THAT reason is the current definition of "fit" for that couple.

Lots of these "random" definitions for "fit" will cancel out in the big picture, when you're looking at thousands or millions of couples in a community, nation, culture, world.

But even world-culture cannot cancel out everything. People at the world level, overall, are still being "bred" as a result of their "fitness" for something. It may be physical fitness, beauty, charm, wealth, good doctors or a propensity for being at the right place at the right time.

The chief point here is that two humans got together for SOME reason and had a baby. For THAT couple, "fitness" is whatever the heck brought them together. And their baby has a slight statistical improvement in its "fitness"--whatever it is for that particular coupling. This is just the way that sex works in all plants and animals on Earth. Whatever that has DNA and two genders.

"Fit" calls into question an "environment" in which to BE fit. Right? Well, our "environment" includes things that monkeys, horses, spanish moss, and dragonflies cannot have: a culture, predicated on intelligence, self-awareness, language and technology.

So, in Darwin's statement about survival of the fittest, when you look at humans, you have to redefine "fit" and "environment", that's all.

[Michaelangelica]

[quote]

Originally Posted by learnin to learn

The difference between humans and other animals is the soul

.
What's this? How does it work?

While other animals select their mates because of their traits, we select our mates because of love.

Or money or arranged by parents & Family

In today's society there is no such thing as survival of the fitest. Those who are too weak to make it on the world can go to doctors who will give them some medicene that makes them better.

We do now, help many who would be formally left to die.
We also kill many who are physically, sexually 'fit' -wars, mass murder, concentration camps.terrorist bombings,natural disasters, famine.

What humans are known for is their adaptations to different climates and environments. No matter where you go, some one will be living there. Now for my question. Is adaptation to the environment in which you live considered a type of evolution? Also, what do you consider evolution?

Where it involves the development of a trait, like better oxygen use in Tibetans, ability to digest lactose (Europeans), malarial resistance in Africans with sickle cell anaemia, AIDS resistance in N. Europeans.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by learnin to learn

The difference between humans and other animals is the soul.

LTL, support your claim.

This is the biology forum. The claim you have made must be supported with references to or at least well-reasoned speculation concerning scientific evidence of a biological basis for what you term “the soul”. “Faith based” arguments are not appropriate to this forum.

[learnin to learn]

sorry let me first specify what exactly a soul is. In many cultures and religions the soul is believed to be the unification of ones identity. For Christians the soul is an utter mystery giving them belief in a supreme being that has given them this "gift". Buddhists believe that the soul never dies that is just recycles through the process of reincarnation. Scientology, which was considered a religion in 1993 by the IRS, is the practice of rediscovering the soul. But still their is the underlying question, what is a soul? What is it's importance? According to religios fanatics the soul allows us to determine right from wrong. It allows us to love and to hate. The characteristics that are not found in other animals.

review of The Rediscovery of the Human Soul by L. Ron Hubbard
the human soul - Google Search

Yes, I was mistaken many factors in human life can be considered being "survival of the fittest". We still rely on this process, the only part that has been redefined is the exact definition of "fit".

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by learnin to learn

sorry let me first specify what exactly a soul is. In many cultures and religions the soul is believed to be the unification of ones identity. For Christians the soul is an utter mystery giving them belief in a supreme being that has given them this "gift". Buddhists believe that the soul never dies that is just recycles through the process of reincarnation. Scientology, which was considered a religion in 1993 by the IRS, is the practice of rediscovering the soul. But still their is the underlying question, what is a soul? What is it's importance? According to religios fanatics the soul allows us to determine right from wrong. It allows us to love and to hate. The characteristics that are not found in other animals.

review of The Rediscovery of the Human Soul by L. Ron Hubbard
the human soul - Google Search

Please refrain from speaking off-topic. This forum deals with biological topics. Religious/philosophical topics may be discussed within the Philosophy and Theology forums.

Yes, I was mistaken many factors in human life can be considered being "survival of the fittest". We still rely on this process, the only part that has been redefined is the exact definition of "fit".

How has "the exact definition of fit" been redefined and how is this relevant?

[learnin to learn]

Originally Posted by CraigD

LTL, support your claim.

This is the biology forum. The claim you have made must be supported with references to or at least well-reasoned speculation concerning scientific evidence of a biological basis for what you term “the soul”. “Faith based” arguments are not appropriate to this forum.

Freeztar this is why i refrained to talking about religion in the biology forum. I was not talkin off-topic I was asked to explain what it was and so I did. I was explaining why the soul is an important difference between homo sapiens and other species found on this planet. Is that not related to biology?

[Boerseun]

If the soul is an organ, or housed in some sort of organ or system in your body that can be analysed, probed, removed and dissected, then, yes - it would fall in the realm of biology.

Unfortunately, scientists since ancient times have tried in vain to locate the seat of the soul in the human body. Famous examples include, for instance, the heart. Most likely because ancient biologists (or proto-biologists, more likely) have noticed the tendency of subjects to pass away upon removal (involuntary in 100% of cases - go figure) of the heart. Not even removal, but mere stoppage for any reason was fatal enough for them to come to the reasonable explanation that the soul departs the body upon failure of the heart. Heart stops, subject dies. Therefore, the soul must reside in the heart.

Unfortunately for the more romantically inclined, the heart turned out to be nothing more and nothing less than a pretty clever meat pump.

And so on and so forth. The latest belief is that the soul resides in the brain, much because of the same line of reasoning. Remove the brain and the subject dies. But through operations where selected parts of the brain is removed, for instance in tumour-removal operations, the patient comes out all fine and dandy. Nowhere has a tumour been removed where the patient came out fine, but soulless.

So it actually turns out that the human soul is a human construct, a pure figment of your imagination. Being reinforced upon weekly visits to a peculiar building run by people with a penchant for anachronous organ music and a want for your pocket-change in return for this particular imaginary service.

Which kinda removes it from the Biology classroom.

[learnin to learn]

i understand. but could it still reside in the brain. i mean couldnt it just be part of some receptor that makes us think. I mean basically all it is is thinking what is right and what is wrong (unless you get religious and then it is something that is transformed into whatever they want you to think it is) I mean since all it really is is understanding what to do and what not to do then could it still be part of the brain? Does that make any since? I feel like I am just babbling