__________________
My Music, 56k stream available -Check it out!

Can we get a summary of what's on the link before we link?

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Yada yada yada

Caveat is: does not include data less than 2000 years BP and thus much of history and virtually all mixing of populations.

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

We are now going through a stage of self-evolution so its not really possible to compare our current evolutionary progress to that of thousands of years ago.

Of course we are evolving faster but that is because we no longer have to wait for natures evolutionary crawl.

The fact people live a lot longer than they did 200 years ago proves our evolution is in our own hands as of now. Nature is not driving evolution anymore, in fact nature is almost redundant for those purposes.

We have taken over ourselves.

For instance, with genetic engineering we may one day be able to engineer humans who can breath atmospheres with no oxygen but full of carbon dioxide. So would nature be responsible for those tpyes of genetically modified humans? No...we would be the ultimate drivers of our own evolution.

Jetlack. Although Mg and CO reacts exothermically....a lot doesn't. The Krebs cycle so inherent to our biochemistry is unlikely to jump that way any time soon. The ability to estivate at will with no tissue damage might be interesting though. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Methinks longer lifespans have more to do with better health care and nutrition than self-directed evolution.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

Hi

I dont know the ins and outs of genetic engineering but if we as animals are organic mechanisms - as it appears - in time we should be able to tailor our anatomy in order to suit most environments.

That we may be engineering humans in thousands of years to be able to breath atmospheres of other planets in our solar system; seems plausible to me.

Hi

healthcare and knowledge of nutrition are self-directed evolution. Nature didnt grow hospitals and modern medical facilities. We learnt those skills over the last few thousand years...at a far quicker pace than nature could provide similarly scaled genetic benefits over a few thousand years.

Oh I see, you're using "evolution" to include all human advancement. The kind of evolution you're talking about really has nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what the article in the OP is talking about.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I think it has something to do with it as our evolution is being driven far quicker by our own deeds than any natural selection, or gene mutative process.

Its in our hands now matey :-)

Biological changes being affected by cultural and social changes, sure. That's what the article talks about, after all. But it's still a misnomer to refer to scientific advancements such as better health care and knowledge of nutrition as "self-directed evolution".

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

One question would be that if we use our medical and technical knowledge to overcome genetic definciencies so that all of our bad genetic mutations survive to reproduce - do we effectively stop evolution? Perhaps better described as proliferation of the fit enough.

Will the forced reproduction of bad genetic mututations lead to our demise as a species years down the road? I know 50 - 100 years ago - I wouldn't have survived to reproduce, but I now have three children and the prospect for a normal life expectency. I like to think this is a good thing, but is it really in the long run?

__________________
Spock Jenkins of the Vulcan Jenkins'.

I dont think so in the same way I dont think we'll kill oursleves with an experiment on the LHC.

If we master genetic engineering we should be able to overcome any scenarios such as that. As we know nature has the ability to change our DNA realtime through viruses. We should eb able to do the same thing with syntehtic viruses or gene therapy of some type in order to avoid extinction.

We could screw up but that would be through our own incompetence.

However if you consider we are now well aware of the danger of extinction through a bollide collision and still havent planned what to do in case we need to deflect an incoming bollide - we obviously are not taking too seriously the advantage nature has gifted us.

Gimme some numbers... How many GM^-2? (Genes per millennium squared.)

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

Getting back to the OP, most of the things described as signs of "evolution" are relatively recent historical developments. Until the advent of agriculture, humans were wanderers by nature, and each gene pool came into contact with others over many generations as competing groups migrated to regions of plentiful food and water. It was probably not uncommon for groups in conflict to take the women of those they defeated. In some groups seizing mates by force could be a rite of manhood for "warrior" cultures. Racial, national or ethnic divisions as we know them did not yet exist; you were either a member of the tribe or you were a stranger. "Races" were differentiated only physically, not socially, because they blended over a spectrum that most human beings alive at the time would never see. Your neighbors or rivals might be slightly lighter or darker than you, or have slightly different faces, but they could bear your children, and that was what counted.

With the advent of the relative luxury of lower infant mortality and greater childbirth survival rates for women, there was no longer an overwhelming need for any and all women a tribe could find. With larger populations, people no longer had to put up with strange-looking outsiders in their midst. They could let their discriminatory instincts and xenophobia have full reign, and separate ethnic groups began to emerge, substituting social isolation for geographic isolation.

Now, we are at another potential evolutionary watershed. A massive population boom, with no natural enemies and a surplus of survival resources, plus worldwide transportation and (in some societies) a relaxing of social taboos against race-mixing. In some cultures, even ones with a high degree of ethnic isolationism, genetic "purity" is not as important as upbringing: I know of an interview with a family in the former Yugoslavia who are raising their son, the child of an affair with a soldier of the "other" side in more peaceful times, to believe his father's ethnic group is the enemy, and that despite his blood he is (whatever the dominant ethnicity of that area is*).

So the idea that specific ethnic/social groups are differentiating is, IMO, premature at best. It ignores history and human nature, and focusses on the actions of a few minorities whose very isolationism is now endangered. While it is possible these exceptions might remain "pure" long enought to lead to true evolution, a long history of milkmen and chambermaids say otherwise.



*I could easily look up the specifics, but they are irrelevant. This same scenario is repeated in areas of ethnic conflict all over the world.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

"Survival of the fittest" is a sliding cut off criterion. It would be more accurate to call it "survival of the fit enough" or "non-survival of the least fit". During good times many survive who would not in rougher times. When the bad times come, nature weeds the culls ruthlessly and emotionlessly. For all of its good points, our current technological civilization is a house of cards that could be blown away by a major catastrophe. A very simple example: Without my glasses, I am legally blind (extreme myopia). Post-catastrophe, a person like me would be helpless and defenseless. Diabetics need insulin (a product of technology) to survive. The list goes on and on.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

On the flip side, our modern societies could not subsist without the skills of many of those "non-fit" survivers. They're only expendable if you're willing to go back to the Stone Age.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

It could be said that one does not go back to the Stone Age willingly!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Oh I see, you're using "evolution" to include all human advancement. The kind of evolution you're talking about really has nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what the article in the OP is talking about.

Not necessarily. Medical technology allows people to survive who might not have survived in the past. For example, a cesearian section allows some women to safely give birth who would probably have died in childbirth (and the baby, too) 100 years ago (my wife among them). Ordinary natural selection would've killed her and probably prevented her genes from being propagated. To me, that's a change in evolution.

One question would be that if we use our medical and technical knowledge to overcome genetic definciencies so that all of our bad genetic mutations survive to reproduce - do we effectively stop evolution? Perhaps better described as proliferation of the fit enough.

I don't know if that would stop evolution or actually increase it. Medical technology is allowing people to propagate genes that would've been wiped out in the past. It seems to me that's increasing genetic diversity but not always for the best.

But what is actually "the best" changes with circumstance. That's the nature of evolution. It's all about adapting to a species' environment, and we've changed our environment.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Agreed, certain human developments have affected the course of human evolution.

My thinking is that more genetic diversity tends to be better for a species. Incidents like the Irish potato famine show that monoculture is a Bad Thing. And greater genetic diversity means more evolutionary paths are pursued, possibly leading to more advantageous traits emerging in the population.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I've taken a look at the article. First of all, it's been published in Yahoo News -- science news from Yahoo? Ahem, yeah that should give me an accurate picture of what cutting edge science is up to.

In the article, there's a paragraph that sets off my alarm bells:

More nuts trying to prove that some ethnicity is "racially superior"?...

Also, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who believes that IQ differences between populations are related to genetics, in this day and age.

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

My thinking is that more genetic diversity tends to be better for a species. Incidents like the Irish potato famine show that monoculture is a Bad Thing. And greater genetic diversity means more evolutionary paths are pursued, possibly leading to more advantageous traits emerging in the population.

Genetic diversity can result in what is sometimes called "hybrid vigor." An example that is sometime cited is that mixed breed dogs (good old mutts) often have less genetic problems than pure breeds.

What I'm wondering about is whether some of the genes that survive to be passed on are a good thing or not. For example, suppose someone has a genetic predisposition towards a severe childhood cancer. In the past they likely wouldn't have survived to pass on those genes. Medical advances might allow them to survive their cancer today and to become parents. Is passing on those genes necessarily a good thing?

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting in any way that we shouldn't treat childhood cancer or that those who survive childhood cancer shouldn't have children of their own. I'm just wondering if passing on certain genetic problems is necessarily a good thing for humanity in the long term.

Many pure breed dogs have severe genetic "problems".
St. Barnards, Great Danes and other large breeds suffer from hip dysplasia, a genetic weakness of the hindquarters. Honest breeders try to keep it out of their lines.
Collies have been so inbred in search of the "perfect" long narrow pointed nose, that it is almost impossible to find one without one or more genetic defects.
Cocker Spaniels, once a hunting dog, have been bred for "cuteness" to the point that some say "they've bred the brains out of them".

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Neither potatoes nor dogs can really be used as accurate analogies, as human beings in practice never approach the degree of line-breeding purity of either. Even the most inbred human gene pools have had occasional freshening every so often. And human beings often mingle their genes in ways that, if not purely random, are certainly not according to any planned breeding program.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

I think potatoes and dogs are good enough analogies for the point that Larry and I were trying to make: biodiversity in any species, human or otherwise, tends to make that species more robust.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

Okay. I guess I missed that.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
"The Mayan symbol for "book" looks a lot like a triple hamburger, but I've never seen them claiming it as proof the Mayans had Big Macs." - KaiYeves
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

No worries, I blab a lot, I'm not surprised not everything gets read

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

Actually there is the more biting problem of girls getting alot uglier these days :-)

Surely you jest.

One might think that the general population should be up to par with the hand selected few in the popular media. One would be wrong. This is something of a moral dilemma, as it skews our views of the world most of us see so little of. Check out your parents yearbooks, check out your own yearbooks, it's suprising how often our perceptions of our own past fails to live up to photographic scrutiny.

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana