Inquiry about better humans

  • Thread starter lockecole
  • Start date
  • #26
Have any of you heard of the Darwin Theory? If not, you should take a look at it. It has alot of answers unless your religous or even if you are, it's a good theory.
 
  • #27
1,515
0
Originally posted by SquareItSalamander
And why are those genes most likely to be propogate? Isn't it because those genes that are most likely to propogate are the very genes that make [comptete] to make us the fittest? [/B]
What Njorl was originally saying (I think) is that 'fitness' is a tautological concept. A 'fit' human is one that passes on its genes successfully, and one that passes on its genes successfully is 'fit'. This is an old chestnut that still bothers many people, even some of the experts.

The concensus here seems to be that inerfering with human genes via eugenics is too dangerous to do. I wonder if it is any less dangerous to do it with other plants and animals.

Mentat - Just btw but you can't say that human beings "change the niche they are in on purpose" while you also assert that the 'hard problem' does not exist. Purpose implies freewill. If human beings have freewill then Neo-Darwinism is a massive over-simplification of evolutionary processes.
 
  • #28
44
0
Originally posted by russ_watters

Njorl isn't talking about social evolution happening in the past 20,000 years, he's talking about it as a component of normal evolution which happens on a much longer timescale. The corollary to "propagation of genes most likely to be propagated" is seen in the abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases. Since procreation occurs generally in your 20s to 30s, genetic flaws that only manifest later in life don't get filtered out. Flawed genes generally get filtered out - but if they don't affect procreation, they stay.

If I understand you correctly, eons of time have "propogated an abundance of later-in-life genetic diseases." Genetic flaws come in several flavors. Some are passed on through genetic lineage, some occur as inborn DNA errors and some are speculated to occur by chance when high energy particles travling through space, (like gamma rays) accidentally strike a particular individual's genetic chromosomes which can in some cases cause damgage that replicates into diseases such as cancer or later formation of glandular diseases such as connective tissue deseases. Procreation being most common in the 20 - 30s is found in our species as apposed to other mammals who procreate in the first, second or third year.

Flawed genes don't get filtered out as they usually end up either causing no damage or in some form of fatal diseases. If genetic material is flawed in the genes or during embryonic development, then most of the time the pregnancy results in a miscarriage or a child is born with deformity or disease. (i.e., children who develop cancer or diabetes, etc)
 
Last edited:
  • #29
44
0
Originally posted by Njorl

Exactly. I am not just considering the evolution of our species since homo erectus, or even australo pithicus. I am considering whatever it was that made the first mother care for her young, whatever made the first male die protecting his mate, whatever made the first pack form etc. These developments are not just taught from one generation to the next, they are physical, genetic developments.

I don't think you are talking about evolution or genetic developments when it comes to certain primal instincts seen in succeeding generations. Why do geese, each season seem to know which direction and when to take to wing? Or how does a mother instinctively nurture her child at the breast or how do salmon invariable find their way back to their breeding grounds, etc? They are not taught as these events happen in the animal world even if not taught by natural parents.

Have you ever wondered how the first homosapiens knew that to procreate and form new generations, the male had to mount the female and copulate? Do you really believe that this was evolution in action? I believe these natural phenomena are much more basic than finding the best orifice to make new generations.

Once you get beyond animals with very simple social structures, evolution is no longer survival of the fittest individual, or even creation of progeny of the fittest individuals. Social effects start getting complicated. If your fitness aides a close relative in creating offspring, many of your genes will survive. Worker ants never breed, but their fitness is crucial to the survival of their genes anyway. A barren lioness might be a boon to a pride if it aides her hunting ability.

Do you think that greater physical prowess, better appearance, or superior genes overpower those that do not fit into similar categories? Might it be that those animals that are more intelligent and able to adapt to environment are the ones who survive?

These socially beneficial traits are not going to be determined easily. We can easily pick out groups with alzheimers, cancer, high intelligence, long life, good singing voices, and try to find associated genes for those traits. But can we pick out "good" people and find those associated traits? I don't think it will happen anytime soon. While it may be that most of what makes a "good" person is not genetic, some of it certainly is. Until we can make fairly reasonable determinations in this regard, we should be very circumspect about messing with genes.

Genetic tinkering for progeny with superior traits like those you suggest is reminiscent of the superman Aryan race. It would come down to the elected suddenly brilliant ruling class (the government politicians) deciding for the rest of us the type of citizens to be born into civilization. Gravity and time are immutable laws and so much more random procreation with all its flaws.
 

Related Threads on Inquiry about better humans

Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
561
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Top