Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research while against abortion?

[Lampoon]

People should develop telepathy, not telephones.

[Shinryusan]

I would argue that because of our advancement in technology and the lack of natural selection with regards to the human race we are actually pushing our physical evolution backwards.

Instead of growing stronger with each generation and reducing the occurrence of genetic diseases we are increasing the frequency and number of genetic disorders and issues which accelerates our need for increasingly sophisticated technology to help prop up our bodies riddled with issues.

Well, I would object to three things in your post, really.

One, is your usage of the term "backwards" in evolution. There is no up, down, forwards of backwards when we discuss biological evolution, we merely adapt to whatever the current environment throws at us (Us as a species, of course). There should not be any kind of positive or negative connotations towards the adaptation.

Secondly, I object to the idea that there is a lack natural selection. The entire point of my last post was to show that natural selection, by it's very definition, never goes away. It can change, certainly, but some phenotype, somewhere, is always more suited to the environment than some other and will experience increased reproductive success, meaning those genes responsible for the phenotype will, in time, spread throughout the gene pool. People dying due to injuries obtained through lack of evolutionary fitness is only one means of natural selection.

Lastly, we'll never, ever, no matter what happens, remove genetic diseases through natural selection, and, as I'll explain in a moment, we shouldn't seek to in the first place. Genetic disease itself is a inescapable by-product of the evolutionary process, since random mutation (the cause of genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, tay-sachs disease, huntington's chorea, and many others) is itself the driver of evolutionary adaptation. They've got a siamese-twin thing going on, can't have one without the other. As I mentioned before, the incidence of genetic disease in a population is in fact a signifier of the long-term health of the species as a whole, as it implies a large variance in genotype. It's these populations that are most likely to survive a rapid change in environmental conditions as many of these so-called diseases can have a protective effect (case in point, sickle-cell anaemia and it's protective effect against malaria.

OK, sorry, tl;dr

I get rolling sometimes.

Edit: Dammit, Tristam, you got me again. AND with far more brevity.

[0ni0n]

I am talking about people that would have died from hereditary diseases, or diseases that others could be immune to. Cystic fibrosis for example, is a hereditary disease, and decades ago, most afflicted would die at or before early childhood. Now, due to advances in treatment, the average life expectancy for someone with CF is somewhere around 35-40 years. Rather than naturally dying from the disorder they were born with, they live long enough to have kids and pass the gene on(thou it is recessive.).

And nothing can slow human evolution down, because it isn't moving forward, unless you're talking about science/technology.

I think you just answered your question. Since we aren't going anyway with biological evolution, I think technological evolution can potentially become the next stepping stone for humanity to reach a higher level of "survivability" as far as natural selection is concerned. You should read up on Singularity.

[zoobernut]

Well, I would object to three things in your post, really.

One, is your usage of the term "backwards" in evolution. There is no up, down, forwards of backwards when we discuss biological evolution, we merely adapt to whatever the current environment throws at us (Us as a species, of course). There should not be any kind of positive or negative connotations towards the adaptation.

Secondly, I object to the idea that there is a lack natural selection. The entire point of my last post was to show that natural selection, by it's very definition, never goes away. It can change, certainly, but some phenotype, somewhere, is always more suited to the environment than some other and will experience increased reproductive success, meaning those genes responsible for the phenotype will, in time, spread throughout the gene pool. People dying due to injuries obtained through lack of evolutionary fitness is only one means of natural selection.

Lastly, we'll never, ever, no matter what happens, remove genetic diseases through natural selection, and, as I'll explain in a moment, we shouldn't seek to in the first place. Genetic disease itself is a inescapable by-product of the evolutionary process, since random mutation (the cause of genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, tay-sachs disease, huntington's chorea, and many others) is itself the driver of evolutionary adaptation. They've got a siamese-twin thing going on, can't have one without the other. As I mentioned before, the incidence of genetic disease in a population is in fact a signifier of the long-term health of the species as a whole, as it implies a large variance in genotype. It's these populations that are most likely to survive a rapid change in environmental conditions as many of these so-called diseases can have a protective effect (case in point, sickle-cell anaemia and it's protective effect against malaria.

OK, sorry, tl;dr

I get rolling sometimes.

I never said that we remove genetic diseases from the population but the point is that over time in a natural setting not controlled by technology the prevalent genetic diseases will shift. There will be a rise in one while another falls away.

As for my choice of words "backwards" was not necessarily appropriate I can see your point. However what I meant by backwards is that in nature evolution moves to improve a species and make it adapt better to its environment as the needs of the species changes. In humans our evolution has broken from this constraint and is more highly influenced by our technology and societies that we created.

Like I said in my first post it all stems down to the fact that humans change the world around them to suit their needs while most other species change themselves to fit with the environment they are already in.

[Kuya]

And by changing their environment their bodies adapt to the new environment they create in kind.

[0ni0n]

I am gonna go out on a limp and argue that technological evolution is far more superior than biological evolution and most certainly the high road that we should focus on. Biological evolution, with the exception of increased brain size/capacity, is an impediment that will only hold us back as we progress.

[zoobernut]

Not quite, if you think of the technology as part of the environment, then we're simply adapting to the ability to pass knowledge along from generation to generation and in that respect it's no different than a species of fish adapting to seawater. Evolution isn't goal oriented, it's not just about gazelles becoming faster and lions becoming stronger. There are tradeoffs all the time. One consequence of having vocal cords is a sacrifice in the amount of air we're able to take in to our lungs, but it's tough to imagine how different we'd be if we had the communication abilites of a dog or cat.

You posted this like you were disagreeing with me but this was the point that I was making was that Humans have evolved to have larger brains which allow us to do certain things and live a certain way and for every evolution change in a species there are trade offs which in humans is we are not particularly fast nor do we have many built in natural defenses against larger animals.

We do not have large claws and we cannot run very fast and our senses are fairly poor compared to other species.

[Shinryusan]

But you're still missing the point. If somehow a global catastrophe hit in which the environment changed to a point where the best able to reproduce would be 120 pound athsmatic mongoloids, then you bet, they'd become the new humanity. Evolution does not produce "better" or "stronger" organisms, they produce different ones that merely reproduce better. In our case, we've largely removed the threat of death as a constraining factor, but that does not mean that some people don't have more kids than others, therefore genetic evolution proceeds on it's merry way, just as it did 65 million years ago.

I dont mean to cause an argument or take sides here, I'm just acting to clarify some ideas that are getting tossed around.

[0ni0n]

That has nothing to do with evolution, people aren't evolving. Modern scientists/doctors/etc. aren't more intelligent or evolved, they're just starting from a higher point on the foundation of knowledge that people continue to build upon. If anything, medical advances impede evolution, since they prevent natural selection.

It has everything to do with evolution. Technological evolution will take over where natural selection left off.

[zoobernut]

And you lack reading comprehension.

I did not once say evolution stopped I merely said it is artificially being pushed in a different direction because of our technology and society. Yes under a natural disaster or any disaster that drastically changes our environment our evolutionary direction would change to accommodate a new environment to protect the perpetuation of the species.

Edit: To clarify what I mean further, the factors driving human evolution are different from the factors driving the evolution of other animals because much of what is driving our own evolution was created by us.

[Darus Grey]

Originally Posted by Tristam View Post
Not quite, if you think of the technology as part of the environment, then we're simply adapting to the ability to pass knowledge along from generation to generation and in that respect it's no different than a species of fish adapting to seawater. Evolution isn't goal oriented, it's not just about gazelles becoming faster and lions becoming stronger. There are tradeoffs all the time. One consequence of having vocal cords is a sacrifice in the amount of air we're able to take in to our lungs, but it's tough to imagine how different we'd be if we had the communication abilites of a dog or cat.

Our communication abilities are not related to our vocal cords. It's simply the medium, had we not developed them we would have the same cognitive abilities and just express them in a different way.

[Kuya]

Our communication abilities are not related to our vocal cords. It's simply the medium, had we not developed them we would have the same cognitive abilities and just express them in a different way.

Elaborate this.

[Shinryusan]

I assume he means something like, "if not sounds/words, then modulated rubbing of our exoskeletons to produce fricassing noises at a variable rate", and such.

[0ni0n]

Our communication abilities are not related to our vocal cords. It's simply the medium, had we not developed them we would have the same cognitive abilities and just express them in a different way.

I somewhat disagree. Studies have shown that language has a vital role in the evolutionary development of our brain capacity. There's a very high chance that our cognitive capability will be severely limited in the absence of language.



"Despite all differences that separate humans from other animals, especially non-human primates, it is the capacity for symbolic language that truly set us uniquely apart. Many differences we have in respect to other primates are relatively small, and incremental in nature, but there is nothing like our ability for language, in all its forms. According to authors Terrence Deacon (in "The Symbolic Species") and Ian Tattersal (in "Becoming Humans"), our brains must have a fundamental difference in respect to other primate's brains, because although they seem to have some capacity for use of symbols and for communication using signs and vocalizations, there are enormous differences in the complexity of human symbolic language and it cannot be explained by a simple increase in volume of neural tissue. Language is so important that it is probable that conscience, thought, planning and many other higher cognitive functions in man are determined by our brain's unique capacity for symbolic representation. According to author Derek Bickerton, language is not only a mean of communication, but it is the essential basis of human consciousness.
By symbolic representation, we mean that certain sounds (and later some graphical elements) are associated by the brain to elements of the physical world."

More reading here, http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n13/m...ution05_i.html

[Kuya]

I'd argue that it is not simply a medium but it also molds our cognitive abilities.

[zoobernut]

I would somewhat disagree. Studies have shown that language has a vital role in the evolutionary development of our brain capacity. There's a very high chance that our cognitive capability will be limited in the absence of language.

People are very stuck in the idea that words/talking is language. There are many other forms of communication if our brains evolved purely because we had language then the absence of language would impede this evolution but if they evolved in tandem or language came about after a jump in the capacity of our brains then if we could not speak in the same way we would have developed a different form of communication to fit what was available to us.

[Tristam]

Our communication abilities are not related to our vocal cords. It's simply the medium, had we not developed them we would have the same cognitive abilities and just express them in a different way.

I sould've specified, our vocal cords help us produce more complicated sounds, pretty sure that's one thing that distinguished homo-sapiens from other ancestral hominids (i.e. neandertal). But I guess you're correct that it is possible that written language could've progressed without a complicated spoken language, is that what you mean? Not sure which came first, and either way it's well outside of my knowledge, any anthro experts care to comment?

edit: lol it appears they already did, disregard then!

[0ni0n]

People are very stuck in the idea that words/talking is language. There are many other forms of communication if our brains evolved purely because we had language then the absence of language would impede this evolution but if they evolved in tandem or language came about after a jump in the capacity of our brains then if we could not speak in the same way we would have developed a different form of communication to fit what was available to us.

We will still need symbols for communication. It's not only language that's important to us, but also the degree of sophistication of our language, such as how complex our syntax are, how we express our ideas/feelings, etc. They all matter greatly.

I would argue that without language (speech/written language), the evolutionary development of our brain capacity will be greatly impeded. For the sole reason that without languages, we don't need a larger brain to comprehend our peers. The need to communicate and the need to understand go hand in hand, and the same applies to language and brain capacity. You can't have one without the other.

[Shinryusan]

I would argue that without language (speech/written language), the evolutionary development of our brain capacity will be greatly impeded. For the sole reason that without languages, we don't need a larger brain to comprehend our peers. The need to communicate and the need to understand go hand in hand, and the same applies to language and brain capacity. You can't have one without the other.

This has been heavily supported by numerous studies both in child psychology and paleontology.

Nevertheless, I still think Darus was just nitpicking on Tristam's example of vocal cords being an evolutionary tradeoff. As in, if not vocal cords, we would have come up with another means of symbolic language simply that don't involve making the air vibrate with our lungs, which is speculation and not really an objection

[zoobernut]

You misunderstood my point. The idea of words/symbols/language is limited by what we have now. My point was that even if we could not "talk" the way we do now I think we would have evolved and developed an equally detailed form of communication by some other means.

The diversity of types of written language across the world coupled with the variety of ways that written language was created, clay, stone, paper, carvings, shows that there are many possibilities out there for how our written language would have developed if we did not develop speaking the way we did.

Edit: Beaten by Shinryusan.