 | | 
03-11-2004
|  | Explaining | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 919
| | | Humans stop evolving? according to drawin's theory. evolution is caused by natural selection which adaptable ones survive and reproduce.
but in today's society, things change... ppl having bad traits (like some sickness....whatever) will not die off, we have hospital, and they can have a love one and have some children. also, ppl having good trait wont reproduce a lot of offsprings, because we are educated ppl. that means natural selection is stopped?
__________________ I have mistaken, apologized, and taken the consequences. My only regret, was for how I was bothered by the unchangable. | 
03-12-2004
| | Curious | | Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? | 
03-12-2004
| | Curious | | Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? Well, Lou, I'm no scientist, but I do feel that evolution is more than just good or bad traits. It's more than survival of the fittest. I believe it also has to do with ones surroundings. For instance, some scientists who believe in global warming, feel that the natural body temp of the human being is on the rise. Now that may not sound like much, but that is still evolution. | 
03-18-2004
| | Curious | | Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? Evolution is actually caused by genetic variation, mostly through gene duplications and mutations. These mutation rates are fairly consistent and therefore we are still evolving at the molecular level. I do however, believe that some lineages of the human species are evolving tword a weaker more dependant being. I don't think that the rise of the natural human body temperature is a sign of evolution, it's more like our biological systems are trying to adapt to new environmental conditions. We can not change the genetic info. that we pass on to our offspring due to enviornmental conditions. | 
03-19-2004
|  | Explaining | | Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 840
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? If the genes from our somatic cells are mutated, it does not mean the genes in our sex organs mutated. So, how can it be passed on the next gen.? | 
03-19-2004
| | Curious | | Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? correct
we cannot pass on somaitc gene mutaiton only mutation that occurs when our DNA is replicating to form gametes (sperm and eggs)
Say you were exposed to some toxic substance and you grew a thrid eye. This mutation cannot be passed on to your offspring. This is only a reaction to environmental circumstance. However, if you were exposed to a toxin that caused a mutation in the gene responsible for propper eye development in your sex cells than it would be possible to pass on a "mutated eye" effect to your offspring. | 
03-23-2004
|  | Explaining | | Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 840
| | | RE:Humans stop evolving? Even if the sex cells were mutated, it still does not necessarily get passed on to the next generation according to Mendel's Laws. Only the dominant allele wins. | 
03-26-2004
|  | Explaining | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 919
| | | RE:Humans stop evolving? i can pass on if the gene is homozygous recessive.
(both mutated)
__________________ I have mistaken, apologized, and taken the consequences. My only regret, was for how I was bothered by the unchangable. | 
03-26-2004
|  | Explaining | | Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Edison, NJ
Posts: 919
| | | RE:Humans stop evolving? what i mean is that there is variation in gene pool. but none of them are favorable.
humans do not die because they have bad traits, or survive better when they have good traits.
we might still be evolving, but since natural selection is stopped, does it mean that our evolution is random? or??
__________________ I have mistaken, apologized, and taken the consequences. My only regret, was for how I was bothered by the unchangable. | 
04-07-2004
| | Curious | | Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9
| | | RE: Humans stop evolving? even with the natural variations in the DNA, it would no longer be survival of the fittest. we wouldnt get any new traits we need to survive any better. the same weak traits like genetic diseased are still being passed down from generation to generation.
in ancient Rome, babies that were found to have something wrong with them were drowned because they wouldn't be usefull to society. this still allowed for natural selection. now though, that kind of thing is considered highly immoral. if society wants to adapt, maybe we should let the genetically impaired struggle themselves instead of funding charity organizations that help them survive. (sorry for the lack of morality) |  | | |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | » Recent Threads | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |