PDA

View Full Version : Sentient Life Has Stopped Evolving


barrington
20-07-2004, 07:48 PM
I wrote this a few years ago on another forum. The grammar and prose is absolute junk, but the basic premise is still intact. Some names changed for relevance. Debate away.

"Well I can't guarantee that the topic is correct. Nor can anyone else on the planet for that matter. But it's an interesting thought I had earlier today whilst partaking of a fully-legal-in-amsterdam cigarette.

RE: The Topic - "sentient" should be taken to mean "sentient and advanced enough to alter one's environment"

I'm too cool to need any evidence or research to back me up, but have a listen to this:

All species on the planet have been constantly evolving since the first amoeba was found in the first stale, two week old & discarded Chicken McNugget somewhere....

...animals/plants/acliff evolve because random variations in their species allow a few of them to do certain things that are central to their existence a bit more easily than their brothers & sisters. Be it eating leaves from high places or avoiding hungry water Vole, over time, the animals with the "insert random beneficial genetic modification" will proliferate at a SLIGHTLY higher rate than those without... and, as such, the magic thing we call evolution through natural selection occurs.

Let's call this kind of thing "adaptive mutation". Why? because it sounds cool & important.

Now, you'll all understand that evolution is a very subtle thing. Perhaps even more subtle than JulesPaxton when she locks posts. It concerns the DIRECT INTERFACE OF ANIMAL vs. ENVIRONMENT. That is, the "path of adaptive mutation" 'plotted' by nature is one that allows a species to become better adapted to it's living environment - to interface with it more effectively in order to be more successful at living. Those that don't adapt well, die.

When I thought about humans, however, I noticed that our ANIMAL vs. ENVIRONMENT interface (the daily fight for life) was about as redundant as ribbed & strawberry flavoured condom vending machine in a convent.

We are in direct command of our environment at all times. If we don't like it, we change it. If we don't adapt to it, we change it. If it becomes hazardous to our health, then we simply stop using the Burger King toilet facilities.

There is no chance for a random advantageous phenotype to proliferate in the human world to such a degree that any "progress" in the art of Humans vs. Environment can be made.

We don't live in a fierce battle for survival every day, nor does our species push the bounderies of existence vs. exstinction as a result of our environment. It's all regression towards the mean, folks. We don't need to stay sharp to stay ahead. It's not just the Alpha-Males that get to survive in this world. Any old dunce can get a 9-5 job pushing buttons on a computer for a meagre sum.

Even Hazzle will probably get a job one day.

Because of this regression to some "very average human" mean of existence, no minor change to our species would cause anyone to die out a bit faster than the rest.

So you have longer fingers? It doesnt allow you to type much faster than the next guy.... So you're a lot smaller than the next guy? Not being able to reach the tin of beans on the top shelf is hardly critical to your survival....

So you see, I would like to propose that Humans are not evolving any more. We're at the end of the road.

Maybe I would go so far as to say that Humans are the most perfectly evolved of any species - since we are so perfectly attuned to our self-commanded environments that we find any more evolution unnecessary..."

What sayeth the Wavefront?

apoggy
20-07-2004, 08:07 PM
I think we are stil evolving, think of this the average worker now sits on their arse all day typing at a computer console, they get home, eat junk food, sit and watch TV, maybe go and sit on a bar stool and enjoy a cool one, go home sleep. Now this means that certain features evolve, for instance the fat arsed lady, or the spotty 30 year old, all evolution and becoming more common place. :D

DragonRat
20-07-2004, 08:19 PM
But suppose obesity and alcoholic tendencies are more an effect of genetic frequency, rather than the environment around a person. In that case, mankind could evolve - whether artifically or naturally - to rid themselves of these extreme circumstances. But, if we were to artificially evolve ourselves, that would prove Baz's point, that we are sentient enough to adapt to our environment, to remove any genetic faults we have, and better survive in our world.

Spire
20-07-2004, 08:26 PM
This will start getting religious and I'm not even getting into that. All I'm going to say is that it is commonly believed around my parts that the pinky toe (the smallest one) will soon be totally useless and people won't be born with one. I know you're fascinated by that piece of information...

acliff
20-07-2004, 08:49 PM
Evolution has generally happened due to necessity. Survival of the fittest. Survival of the creatures most suited to the environment, and those with genetic mutations that make survival easier for them than the rest.

Now, people who are weak, dying, mutated are cared for, by other humans, or the welfare state system. Human beings as a social group, are compassionate. Evolution is not as kind.

Now that human beings have seemingly broken the evolutionary development of our species, by the struggle for survival, and procuring food becoming a great deal easier. The invention of money and education in particular have cast the energy flow limiting factor aside to a great degree. As has mass food manufacture. Also being at the top of the food chain helps this somewhat.
However this is considering the richer parts of the world. Where the poor generally don't starve to death, and people die of lung cancer, and heart disease from eating too much.

In third world countries, many people die of starvation and thirst. Here at least it seems those that have a better education and more money have a chance to get food, survive and improve their situation. This could be considered an evolution of sorts. The more educated and wealthy survive.
Same occurs in even well developed countries. In asia, you have to work hard in order to compete and get the jobs you want. The ones who fail, live terribly with no respect etc etc. Main difference being, these people generally don't starve (although its not unhead of, as for example the korean welfare system is almost non existent in comparison to England's)

However, so far I have avoided the critical factor. Which is reproduction. In the history of evolution, the females always mated with the strongest males with the strongest genes, which were the ones best suited for hunting, or gathering food. Nowadays genes are less important. Love tied with compassion drives the human species' reproduction. Not many care about good genes or whatever, which is why there are huge amounts, and increasing amounts of people with genetic disorders and diseases. If we were to improve our gene pool, these people would have to die. Which is certainly not a good thing.

Which culminates to this... the evolution of the human species is not as based on genes. It is based on intelligence, and compassion. Both tangible things which in some respect tie in with genes, but not to the extent that we are all 6 foot 4 bodybuilder types with perfect teeth, eyesight and blonde hair, blue eyes, and IQs of 160+. The media may be having an affect, by implying that these overly beautiful people are who we should be going for. Rather than those with no history of genetic diseases in the family.
Compassion may be the ultimate evolution for any race, as it fucks with evolution, and cares for the weak, which evolution fails to do. This could, theoretically be the destruction of our race, as we all die from genetic diseases. Maybe that is the next evolutionary step. For example, HIV might kill all except the naturally immune. Those people are genetically evolved to survive, and live on. However, compassion is something to be cherished and the fact that we are capable of it shows how evolved we truly are.
Just some thoughts.

duckula
20-07-2004, 08:57 PM
What about the X-Men?

Hazzle
21-07-2004, 12:39 AM
What about the X-Men?

And here was me thinking I wouldn't wade into this discussion as it seemed to be an "intelligent debate" and I have no place in one of those :eek:

Hmmm...surely if evolution is about a species adapting to suit it's environment (which it is, if my understanding is correct)...then it would be correct to state, as Baz does, that Humans have reached the pinnacle of evolution. This being that we no longer HAVE to adapt to suit our environment...we merely adapt the environment itself. Better technology, education, social welfare etc all help us to modify and adapt the environment in which we live...and with advances being made in genetics even Cliff's issue of genetic diseases may become a moot one. I mean if parents have GM babies then it no longer matters if their genes are perfect or not, does it?

apoggy
21-07-2004, 12:43 AM
This being that we no longer HAVE to adapt to suit our environment...we merely adapt the environment itself.

but couldnt it be said that we are in fact adapting to live inside houses, sit around and eat a diversified diet? We may adapt the environment, by building comfortable homes to live in, but are we perfectly evolved to survive in this miniature environment? I don't think so because nothing is indeed perfect

ChocolateMoose
21-07-2004, 11:13 AM
All I'm going to say is that it is commonly believed around my parts that the pinky toe (the smallest one) will soon be totally useless and people won't be born with one. I know you're fascinated by that piece of information...

No, thats cool. I've heard the same thing about the appendix. And body hair...the article said that when humans first evolved they had hair to keep them warm, but now with heated houses etc, its not needed as much, and over time may sease to exist. I think thats wrong though because it helps with keeping the skin waterproof, lol.

barrington
21-07-2004, 01:00 PM
People aren't born without things because they are useless, they are born without things because everyone else that lacked that part survived better. You are looking at evolution in reverse (probably as most people do).

Evolution through Natural Selection doesn't remove the bad, it merely promotes the good so that the bad become marginalised and eventually drop out altogether.

With the advent of surgery, the largely non-critical failure of the appendix in modern times means that any minority defectually born without one will not have any advantange over those who merely have it removed by surgery - the appendix will probably never evolve-out.

Things like obesity are merely a class of reactive (albeit possibly a genetic predisposition environmentally expedited ) conditions that have no bearing on the next generation of offspring. Those that are fat and eat a lot will not necessarily have children that are the same. Supplant their parents with alpha-human replacements and the possibility diminishes markedly. Obesity is not evolution, it's social and environmental.

hasselbrad
22-07-2004, 09:30 PM
...nobody's mentioned car seats and helmets/knee pads/elbow pads?
Children continue to evolve into weaker and weaker creatures because of these things. Natural selection is unable to work its magic. When I was a kid, we didn't wear helmets for anything except football (U.S...sorry) and baseball. And then, it was only in organized leagues. Helmets were for pussies. And, if you wore one, you'd get pummelled...and natural selection strikes again!
Thus, children of my generation grew up with thicker skulls. I've had several concussions and God knows how many stitches in my head, yet only lost consciousness briefly, once. And that occurred after being pulled from the hood of a moving car. Today's helmeted child's head would be smashed like an over-ripe melon. :icon_surp
Same thing with car seats. When I was a baby, I crawled around the back seat on a blanket. Every toy we had would be deadly to today's children. I say take the little buggers' helmets off and give 'em some lawn darts. Or...swords! :fencing:

ChocolateMoose
23-07-2004, 12:31 AM
And another thing is now-a-days people are obsessed with everything being sterile. In some situations, obviously, it is vital but in some places its going a bit far. People's immune systems are getting weaker as they don't have to deal with little germs which may have previously been there, which means that when there is a little bug, the person becomes very ill from it rather than be a little poorly.

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 01:18 AM
but couldnt it be said that we are in fact adapting to live inside houses, sit around and eat a diversified diet? We may adapt the environment, by building comfortable homes to live in, but are we perfectly evolved to survive in this miniature environment? I don't think so because nothing is indeed perfect

If we're not, we can merely adapt the environment to suit our evolutionary state.

i don't know if you'd call this evolution really, but the life expectancy of human beings is still increasing in most parts of the world. obviously that's not natural evolution - it's because of human 'interferance'. i think natural evolution has probably stopped. people are still 'evolving' (i dont know if you'd call it evolution) but it's not for the same reasons that it was thousands of years ago (climate change, survival etc) nowadays people are evolving because of all the new fad diets, surgery and artificial things they're doing to their bodies - people are changing but not because they need to in order to survive, but because they want to change themselves. (but i dont know if you'd really call that evolution at all.. dont shoot me if that made no sense)

I would call that an evolution of sorts. To develop as a species to the level where you're capable of extended your life by artificial means is the pinnacle of evolution. It's not evolution in the scientific sense of the species getting stronger in their actual physicality, but I believe that so long as the science is there for the species as a whole, the species as a whole IS evolving with longer life spans.

hasselbrad
23-07-2004, 01:02 PM
...an ancestor of mine had an appendectomy perfomed at home...by a doctor who honed the knife he used on the sole of his boot...after walking through their yard...filled with goats and chickens.
We are sissies.

KRev
27-07-2004, 08:06 AM
Evolution: a fairy tale for adults. A psuedoscience cop out for people who don't want to be accountable to a God.

If you despise the concept of God, religion, sin, and Savior, fine. Admit to it. Don't hide behind the transparent shroud of evolution--a concept that that can't even be called a theory since a theory implies the possibility of being true.

Are humans at the end of the road? Are we no longer "evolving"?

Sure. We're at the end of the road--We're perfect--Created that way.

**Don't bother addressing my comments if you don't understand the difference between the concepts of micro and macroevolution. The aforementioned comments are addressed to the latter. If so, let's talk...**

barrington
27-07-2004, 01:06 PM
Evolution is not a choice of belief.
It's a choice of evidence-backed, testable, repeatable, visible understanding of natural mechanics vs. ignorance.

deviljet88
27-07-2004, 01:14 PM
Evolution: a fairy tale for adults. A psuedoscience cop out for people who don't want to be accountable to a God.

If you despise the concept of God, religion, sin, and Savior, fine. Admit to it. Don't hide behind the transparent shroud of evolution--a concept that that can't even be called a theory since a theory implies the possibility of being true.

Are humans at the end of the road? Are we no longer "evolving"?

Sure. We're at the end of the road--We're perfect--Created that way.

**Don't bother addressing my comments if you don't understand the difference between the concepts of micro and macroevolution. The aforementioned comments are addressed to the latter. If so, let's talk...**
How are men perfect? Since you're the one talking about religion, I'll follow you up. If you read the Bible carefully, pretty sure its Old Testament, it clearly states MAN IS IMPERFECT. In Genesis, it shows how man used to live to a few hundred years old, but God made them live shorter lives because they sinned a lot. Man is perfect? I fear not. Created to be perfect? If we were, stupid Eve wouldn't eat the apple in the Garden of Eden, would she?

aspro
27-07-2004, 01:21 PM
well it all depends on your opinion of perfection.

Narg
27-07-2004, 01:24 PM
Evolution: a fairy tale for adults.


Evolution has been proven on countless ocasions, you ignorant piss-ant.

Moe
27-07-2004, 08:55 PM
Evolution: a fairy tale for adults. A psuedoscience cop out for people who don't want to be accountable to a God.

If you despise the concept of God, religion, sin, and Savior, fine. Admit to it. Don't hide behind the transparent shroud of evolution--a concept that that can't even be called a theory since a theory implies the possibility of being true.

Are humans at the end of the road? Are we no longer "evolving"?

Sure. We're at the end of the road--We're perfect--Created that way.

**Don't bother addressing my comments if you don't understand the difference between the concepts of micro and macroevolution. The aforementioned comments are addressed to the latter. If so, let's talk...**

Now, to simplify this whole thing I am going to assume that you are not being sarcastic.

Wow. Don't you just love it when people add to a conversation by posting well-thought-through, logical arguments like "Don't bother adressing to this, you are all morons anyway"? See, that's what convinces people that you are right, because you have great debate skills.

Your argument contradicts itself, by the way. You say that evolution is even less than a theory, yet you base that on faith. Something which can't be proven, ever.

Now, are you trying to say that you believe in the creation according to the bible? Something that supposedly happened 4000 (or was it 6000) years ago?

KRev
28-07-2004, 12:04 AM
** Man was always mortal, always able to sin and be corrupted. The prefection I speak of was original sinlessness.

** Evolution proven? Me ignorant? Explain, then, how a supposed lightning strike can create the first, living, fully operational organic cell? The odds of all the needed proteins even being present in the exact location to be struck is in the neighborhood of 1 x 10^40,000 {edit}. Any mathematician would tell you that such odds are so great that they are classified not as possibility or improbability, but impossibility. Not to mention that the inert gasses need to create such proteins were never present on Earth to the degree that the aforementioned reaction would required.

READ:

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred—with or without God’s help. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

This scientific law, alone, disproves macroevolution.

KRev
28-07-2004, 12:08 AM
Your argument contradicts itself, by the way. You say that evolution is even less than a theory, yet you base that on faith. Something which can't be proven, ever.

Sure, religion is based on faith. No argument.

Science, however, should be based on scientific proof. Macroevolution cannot be proven and should therefore not be included in the so-called science books passed out in schools.

** And the time frame you refer to has been estimated to be 8,000 to 12,000 years.

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 01:02 AM
What Baz said...it's accepting evolution or ignorance.

Hmmm...an improbable but not impossible occurance versus blind faith in something we have ABSOLUTELY no proof of.

It's ok my friend, religious zealotry is an illness, and the men in white coats are on their way.

KRev
28-07-2004, 02:46 AM
Ignorant... religious zealot... boo hoo... blah blah blah

Try addressing the scientific issues I brought up. Then sit on your ivory towers to insult my intelligence.

Oh yeah, "absolutely no proof." If you'd read my post, you see that there is proof for evolution. Unfortunately for you, it all shows that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

DragonRat
28-07-2004, 09:33 AM
Yes, but macroevolution is possible with the help of God. So, what's the point in disagreeing about one view, when I simply suggest that both religion and science can coexist? It's not doubting God's omnipotence to think that He could create the heavens and earth in a mere six billion years; heck, I don't think anyone else ever in existence could conceive of such things. The only way that macroevolution could exist, that life could be made spontaneously, is through the working hand of God.

I don't know. There's two sides to this argument, but I tend to stand on the precipice of both cliffs.

Moe
28-07-2004, 02:31 PM
Not to mention that the inert gasses need to create such proteins were never present on Earth to the degree that the aforementioned reaction would required.

This doesn't have to be the answer, but I would like to point out that meteors frequently strike earth, and that they can bring previously foreign substances to earth.

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 04:35 PM
Ignorant... religious zealot... boo hoo... blah blah blah

Try addressing the scientific issues I brought up. Then sit on your ivory towers to insult my intelligence.

Try offering a viable alternative theory...and don't give me that God bullshit as you can't prove it, can you? Can't just say "macroevolution is impossible" and then not offer an alternative...that's just ignorant...so I feel myself perfectly justified in attacking your intelligence.

Next time learn how to argue...you don't just belittle the opposing argument, you seek to offer an alternative too.

Oh yeah, "absolutely no proof." If you'd read my post, you see that there is proof for evolution. Unfortunately for you, it all shows that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.

I read your post...and your proof...where's your counter theory? And the proof for it? Y'see my point was all your proof shows is that macroevolution is a scientific improbability...noone has said it's "impossible", merely that the odds of improbability are so high that one "may as well" say it's impossible. You'll find NO mathmatician worth his salt will say odds, no matter how high, are impossible, unless they're infinite.Not quite the same thing. Whereas there is NO proof of God's existence, is there now?

As Moe pointed out, there are many valid explanations...as yet you've offered no proof to support any counter argument...so that makes you...an imbecile.

Thank you and goodnight, retard.

DragonRat
28-07-2004, 05:21 PM
I think what Haz has just said is: you have offered no viewpoint on your apologetics. Basically, you have denounced science, but you have no stance on the proof of God's existence. If you willingly disprove one without proving the other, you lend your way to nihilism. But we wouldn't want that, now would we? :P

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 09:15 PM
I think what Haz has just said is: you have offered no viewpoint on your apologetics. Basically, you have denounced science, but you have no stance on the proof of God's existence. If you willingly disprove one without proving the other, you lend your way to nihilism. But we wouldn't want that, now would we? :P

Yeah...but I put it blunter :D Blunt is good :p

To get back on topic...does my existence suggest reverse evolution of the species has begun? ;)

hasselbrad
28-07-2004, 09:36 PM
No, but I think the popularity of crap like The Jerry Springer Show and most other garbage on television portends a serious backslide into the Cro-Magnon period.

KRev
28-07-2004, 10:06 PM
You want to preach to me about rhetoric?

The only message on this board that isn't tinged with ad hominem, strawmen and red herrings is DragonRat's.

Retard... imbecile... zealot… psycho… Yeah.

With all due respect, that sure sounds scholarly and enlightened as--correct me if I’m wrong--you all claim to be.

Can anyone address the glaring contradiction in evolutionary “theory” that I presented? Does anyone here have concrete, scientific proof of evolution? Or do you only have the word of your atheistic grammar school teachers?

Or are you just going keep ignoring the science while attacking a religious view that you assume I hold?

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 10:20 PM
You want to preach to me about rhetoric?

I didn't preach to you about rhetoric. I preached to you about being a dick...difference.

Can anyone address the glaring contradiction in evolutionary “theory” that I presented? Does anyone here have concrete, scientific proof of evolution? Or do you only have the word of your atheistic grammar school teachers?

a) You assume I went to a Grammar School
b) You assume my teachers were atheist (I was actually taught creationary theory in RE...so suck it, wanker)
c) Do you have concrete, scientific proof of any alternative theory? THAT was my point, if you could read...provide me with an alternative and I'll feel the need to back up my argument (again, you assume I'm in the evolution camp, and I'm not...I just think you're an arrogant little nut who should be locked up in a home for the criminally insane...religious zealotry leads to religious extremism...and the latter leads to deaths...

Or are you just going keep ignoring the science while attacking a religious view that you assume I hold?

I'm not the one ignoring anything...y'see you're missing a basic principle of a debate...I don't need to justify my side until you provide a viable alternative. Unless, as DR pointed out, you suggest a theory of nihilism? If so, you'll find I am in agreement with you...see...that wasn't so tough now, was it?

Come back when you realise how to argue properly...I've explained it once...twice...three times now...and I grow tired of arguing if you don't understand the basic principles of a debate.

Irony is you praise DR's post and yet didn't understand it.

Edit: I didn't assume you were religious, you stated religious beliefs in your earlier post, and used terms of the creationist school of thought...as such I merely went on what information you provided :)

KRev
28-07-2004, 10:52 PM
OK. Points taken. My bluntness does come off as dickishness, I guess.

Back to square one...

Hey, Hazzle--or whoever will answer--you're a well-spoken, opinionated individual. What do you think about the Law of Biogenesis and how it apparently conflicts with current macroevolutionary theory?

(Please don't read any sarcasm into this post. This is question that I would sincerely like answered by someone more knowledgable in this. Call it curiosity. I promise: no arguments. I just want to know.)

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 11:08 PM
OK. Points taken. My bluntness does come off as dickishness, I guess.

Back to square one...

Hey, Hazzle--or whoever will answer--you're a well-spoken, opinionated individual. What do you think about the Law of Biogenesis and how it apparently conflicts with current macroevolutionary theory?

(Please don't read any sarcasm into this post. This is question that I would sincerely like answered by someone more knowledgable in this. Call it curiosity. I promise: no arguments. I just want to know.)

I'm no expert, but doesn't the law of biogenesis merely state that no evolution of life out of non-living matter has been observed? It doesn't state that it hasn't occured, merely that we've never observed it, and this, I'd suggest, is merely an indication as to the fragile nature of human knowledge.

Plus, as Moe pointed out, evolution does not presuppose that life was formed out of non-living matter...the earth has often been hit by meteors, which theoretically could have introduced strains of life to this planet. Of course that in turn raises a doubt over where that life came from...but it does of course answer the question (although it needn't be THE answer, as he points out) as to how the Law of Biogenesis can be reconciled with evolutionary theory.

KRev
28-07-2004, 11:11 PM
So many possibilities... Never heard those postulations before...

Reminds me of the addage, "The more you know, the less you know."

Eh?

Hazzle
28-07-2004, 11:15 PM
So many possibilities... Never heard those postulations before...

Reminds me of the addage, "The more you know, the less you know."

Eh?

I can agree with that one...a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing too though ;)

Perhaps ignorance is the way to go? :p

KRev
28-07-2004, 11:17 PM
May I add, Gergumphh.

Cro-magnon for Touche...

DragonRat
29-07-2004, 12:47 AM
But while you insist on attacking evolutionary theory, you still haven't proffered your own apologetic proof for the existence of God. Whether it be a physical or metaphysical proof, you still cannot continue to contradict evolution, without suggesting any alternatives. To do so would weaken your own position in the argument.

KRev
29-07-2004, 01:12 AM
But while you insist on attacking evolutionary theory, you still haven't proffered your own apologetic proof for the existence of God. Whether it be a physical or metaphysical proof, you still cannot continue to contradict evolution, without suggesting any alternatives. To do so would weaken your own position in the argument.

OK.

You can go to any religion and get explanations for the genesis, extistence, and works of God/god(s). Since theological explanations seem to be soundly rejected, I will not refer to any of the above.

Admittedly, there are many more people more adept at arguing the existence of God than I. Therefore, I shall refer to Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence in a new thread for discussion (and to preserve the topic of this thread). Go to...

http://www.kkwavefront.org/forums/showthread.php?p=8520#post8520

NearokA
08-09-2004, 05:24 AM
Ah Barrington, your going to keep me up all night with these threads...

And what of aids and cancer friend?

You are right to assume that we aren't changing that much. I believe though, our brains are still in their lowest forms and have not yet reached full potential. You see, the thing that changes is knowledge. Evolution in intelligence my man. And this may very well be the most evil thing that has ever risen in nature, but you can also see its benefits, no?

And the other is bacteria and viruses. The simplest things on our planet, but also the most deadly. To date, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop bacteria and viruses without destroying ourselves in the process. To me, bacteria is the most perfect form of life there is. I often find myself in sheer amazement. Suffice to say, if there are bacteria and viruses, there will always be room for genetic mutation in all things. It's so beautiful really. We can't survive without these little buggers even though they are the bane to our existence.

Evangelion
08-09-2004, 09:31 AM
I think we are still evolving, to pull something from my biology classes, look at sickle cell anemia. To understand this dear readers you have to be familiar with the terms dominant, recessive, and heterozygous:
sickle cell anemia is where the sufferer's red blood cells take on a different shape. instead of the normal circle with the dent in the middle, they are "sickle" shaped, meaning the cells are inequipped to carry oxygen around the body, meaning the sufferers die an early death. The condition is relatively rare because it is recessive in the population, but people with it are immune to malaria! It has also been found that people who are heterozygous to it-meaning they carry the genetic disorder but don't suffer from it-are also immune to malaria for some reason.
This proves the human race is evolving-through mutations-an immunity to malaria.
Also some women in Africa have been found who are immune to HIV AIDS...

NearokA
09-09-2004, 01:22 AM
On a side topic:

Do you believe that medicine is our greatest marvel, or our greatest fault? I mean, one can clearly see it is because medicine that we are allowed to live so long and it is because of medicine that we can appreciate our families and celebrate their good health.

But one has to wonder if medicine is actually the bane of our existence. You see, with the aid of medicine, we have unknowlingly assisted bacteria in evolving thousands of times faster than under nature circumstances. Mostly it has to do with drug abuses, but in a world of 4 billion+ people, how can one regulate such a thing? And certainly it does not take much to imagine that medicine has in fact inhibited our natural evolution. Does the assistance of drugs make us weaker?

While we may be evolving slowly, other organisms are evolving at a much faster pace. Are we winning the battle (with medicine), but losing the war?

Evangelion
09-09-2004, 03:04 AM
Thats a good quesiton. Its true the viruses and bacteria are evolving much faster than we are, meaning the medication we throw at them is becoming useless. Doctors nowadays are encouraged to hand out preventions rather than give pills to anyone with a sniffle.
Eventually the diseases which are easy to cure these days, will be nigh impossible to kill I believe, so in a sense we will have lost the war...hopefully I won't be alive then :p