Modern Human Evolution and the Gene Pool...

cannabineer said:

I'd like to offer a dissenting opinion or two.
Evolution as presented by Darwim does indeed posit the fittest surviving ... but here the word "fitness" needs to be elaborated a bit.
The machinery of human evolution (genes mutating and being cut&shuffled) is as active as ever. Also the environmental drivers for evolutionary selection is also as active as ever.
But imo that is only half the argument, because it neglects a very powerful force shaping the bank of genes and heritable traits that underlied the human phenotypes.
The missing half is sexual selection, which until very recently (and most of the time still) was the prerogative of females to exercise. In simplest terms, "which of you lucky fuckers do I choose as a likely partner and parent to my children?" Now after reading some of what passes for romance and flirtation on RIU, I could add the cynical observation that many many females of the current generation are neglecting this right-and-duty ...asleep on the job, as it were.
So I think that we have not stopped natural selection in its tracks.

On a related topic, Tyler mused about an event, which - if it can be developed and exercised with some generality of access - I consider to be the next great evolutionary step ... the conscious feedback of mind and intellect into the substrate of its expression - the human gene pool.

However (forgivably considering recent history of technology) we have a tendency to view the genetic DNA as a simple digital storage and reproduction format for the hard info of the genotype. Nature has had no compunction about employing human engineers' concept of beauty and design in making the hardware or software. The genetic info is packaged very tightly, very contingently (?word) on those few billion basepairs, and having a molecular-level transcript of one or several human genomes hasn't led to the sort of breakthroughs we can reasonably expect of the packaging of information were simpler, more modular. Look at how few genes and their (protein) products are directly involved in the embryonic pageant of the "unpacking" of a zygote into a human fetus. Almost all of that dance is managed using things like hormone concentration gradients. Bottom line: the molecular machinery of inheriting, expressing, changing genetic info is compact but very far from simple. I believe it will be achievable, but we'll need some more advancement in the both the theory and practice of molecular genetics.

But when we do, hang onto your hat, because I believe that once the tech is released, it will lead to a complete redefinition of what it means to be human. Devastating wars have been fought for lesser stakes, and these will be the biggest of them all: Whose children get the stars? Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

tyler.durden said:

Good post, Neer. It's nice to read that there is someone besides myself that feels it is a woman's responsibility to choose the best man for the 'job'. When they let just any old loser get their hands in their cookie jar, it seems against what the selection process was meant to be. In this way, they have a great responsibility/accountability in regards to the quality of the human race...

Click to expand...

cannabineer said:

... so long as it isn't an Express Lion. cn

Click to expand...

Balzac89 said:

I think its good. IF there is a mass extinction only the best characteristics will be left because our genetic diversity is so large

Click to expand...

BillyBonnie said:

For all of history, only the strongest and fittest members of each species has survived...It's evolution's way of ensuring that each species remains as strong as possible from generation to generation...only the strongest and fittest survive. All well and good.

But modern humans, with their big brains, have discovered ways to sidestep evolution's age-old way of ensuring "survival of the fittest", and strength of the gene pool. Specifically, modern humans have discovered ways (through medical "advancements") to allow people to survive who would have not survived in years past. Diabetes sufferers, people with terrible eyesight, kids with leukemia, people with congenital heart disease, people with suicidal tendencies, people with tendencies to develop cancers, etc.

Thus, these heretofore early "diers" are now living long enough to pass their genes on to the gene pool.

Is this a good thing?

Please understand, this post is not meant to incite angry responses. Rather, it's meant to elicit mature (albeit possibly emotional) responses.

All rational opinions welcome.

Click to expand...