For those of you who aren’t quite familiar with the theory of natural selection here is a quick and simple explaination:
Organisms pass on genetic code through reproduction. Sometimes there are mistakes in the translation and random mutations occur. Most of the time mutations prevent organisms from performing to their best abilities, and they die; but sometimes a mutation allows an organism to perform better than the average competitor. This organism will then reproduce and pass on it’s genetic code, creating more similar organisms. Over a long, long period of time, and after much reproduction and passing on of genetic code, this organism will start to dominate in it’s environment, and the old competitors will die off. This process of natural selection is never ending.
I hope most of you find this to be an honest explaination of the natural selection process, as I am not a biologist, or evolutionist, so excuse me if I am missing a necessary detail.
Now for my question: People today are very concerned with their looks, that is, people want to look like everyone else, or what is considered to be normal looking. When someone is born with some sort of mutation whether it be physical, or maybe even mental, they want help. Those with physical mutations go to surgeons who cut and reshape; those with mental differences go to doctors who teach them how to think differently. I realize that treating a problem like this does not change the genetic code of the individual, that it remains the same, and the same problems may be passed on through reproduction, but I am more concerned with the ability to prevent these mutations in the first place…
that is, will the ability to identify and edit errors (random mutations) in genetic code possibly prevent natural selection? If natural selection is the reason why we are the way we are, do we really want to allow people to prevent differences in individuals before they are born? I’m concerned that this ability, looked at in the wrong way, might prevent further human developement.
I guess it’s all about what your goals are. I look forward to the era of recombinant babies. Natural evolution is useful, don’t get me wrong, but it did not prepare us for an 80-year lifespan; nor did it prepare us for the modern diet. Above all, it did not prepare us for the equalizer that technology has become: we are approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium! If we want to adjust ourselves to the modern world, then we must adjust our genes accordingly.
Look at dogs. The variety and specialization that we observe in dogs is from simple selective breeding. While I would not advocate such a program for humanity, it becomes unnecessary because we can accomplish the same results in a fraction of the time with molecular genetics.
We’re pretty close to being able to perform germ-line alterations. But before then, we’ll have gene therapy, which is a good start.
My question was, do you think science will prevent natural selection?
Is there anyone out there who actually focuses on the question being asked rather than looking for familiar topics with the single intention of typing out a load of insignificant crap?
I apologize, but please, I’d like the topic to stick to the effects of science on natural selection rather than how cool it will be to play with genes.
Well, evolution is based upon the idea that the best features of man and woman that enable him/her to mate well will survive. So considering this, we must look at who has the most children. And when considering that it is usualy poorer families that are “breeding” best then we I think we can be looking forward to a much slow intelligence evolution. I am by no means saying that poor people arnt intelligent…I am just saying that intelligence isnt a major skill that the working class rely on for survival. The working class manage to breed sufficiently without a high intelligence (low intelligence being due to poor education).
The reason you are finding that no one is sticking to the immediate topic at hand is because it is indeed generaly accepted that science does interfere with evolution and slow it down. Its pretty obvious, so dont expect people to stick directly to your question. This is an open forum.
I addressed that when I said ‘we are approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium’. shrugs I think it’s already been well established that for humans living in the 1st world there are VERY few selective pressures (the only ones I can think of are debilitating childhood diseases), so (to me) the next logical question is: what are we gonna do about it?
No I don’t think science will prevent natural selection, because science is evolving via natural selection, ei; memes.
Might we prevent further human development biologically? Its possible, I suppose. There really isn’t very much selection pressure on homo sapiens anyways, and hasn’t been for quite awhile, its not like we have to adapt to anything. Either way if we do begin, and we probably will, creating “designer genes” then that creation will actually be a part of natural selection, so I think the question is mute in the first place.
Is that a response to my post?? If so I don’t understand. I didn’t say that our tampering with ‘designer genes’ would be positive or negative, just that any tampering would be a result of natural selection.
Careful, that’s treading close to LaMarckian Heresy. Are you saying that intelligence isn’t a selective factor in the working class? I disagree – Some of the most prolific breeders (particularly those that can juggle multiple females) are extremely intelligent. It takes very careful allocation of funds as well as highly tuned social skills (both fair metrics for intelligence). It is certainly misdirected, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t selectable. Also, intelligent members of the working class are more likely to form the connections necessary to become managers (neopotism reigns supreme in most fields, blue and white collar).
I liked the comment about memes above. Since we’re not going anywhere genetically right now, the largest impact on humanity is through the propogation of ideas. If society were to crumble for some reason and genetic natural selection came back into play, the ideas produced by our civilization would be the most significant, enduring contribution. Nobody will care if Cletus McRedneck survives and 90% of humanity carries his genes, but they care about the contributions of the scientists and philosophers before the crash.
Obviously there are the few intelligent working class that manage to do well. But it is generaly accepted that middle class and upperclass are more intelligent. Atleast in todays society.
I know there are many unintelligent members of the upper and middle class and such. But as you yourself stated
and so youll accept that intelligence is generaly more helpful to the upper classes.
While I definately think that some of the upper class apply their intelligence better, I think that intellect is basically spread evenly between the classes. The master said, “Men are alike at birth, it is through repeated practive that they diverge,” and I am inclinded to agree. Sure, we could breed people to render that wisdom irrelevant, but that won’t happen anytime too soon.
I know a lot of people in the upper class whose mommy and daddy paid for a nice college education but they remain dumb as stumps. I’ve known hardcore blue-collar workers who were extremely intelligent. Heck, the smartest person I’ve ever met was going to college on a scholarship to be a nurse (1st gen college student). Think of all the middle-management morons who got where they are because they could afford to and their family has the connections.
I’d go so far as to argue that intelligence provides a larger selective advantage in the lower classes than in the higher. In the higher classes, financial heredity tends to play a HUGE role in desirability; whereas in the lower classes one must be sly to make the most of their financial investment. Also, the Rich/Super-rich boundary is much less porous than the very-poor/poor boundary (the middle class is quickly disappearing so they don’t figure into this equation). Intelligence, while misapplied by my standards, can yield much more tangible rewards for the lower class than the higher.