Evolutionists?

Question

Okay, I just wanted to use that non-word one time. Sue me. By rights I should ask this in Biology I think, and I might later on, I just value your opinion.

Do you think self-awareness (like us homo sapiens have gained) could be a limiting factor on the more extreme (beneficial) mutations? By which I mean, we have this image of what a human should look like. 1 head, 2 arms, 5 fingers etc. Anything that falls outside that 'image' would be considered, well, a freak, with low chances of finding a mate. I could imagine that in non-self-aware species this would be less of an issue.

Are we hampering the free flow of mutation stacking upon mutation by self-aware selection, leaving room only for the more 'subtle' mutations? Would this be a natural step in species that gain self-awareness, a sort of fixating of external appearances? Or is that, too, something temporary? And is it a good thing?

Just wondering out loud, again, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

"logical christian": what the hell are you talking about? Did you read the question, or are you just ranting?

Answer 1

I would say the lack of predators against humans would reduce the pace of evolution a little. We've made earth very safe for humans, and adaptation is not really all that necessary.

We are actually at a point now where we will be able to direct our own evolution. There will soon be INCREDIBLE enhancements to the brain made possible - tremendous increases in IQ will be engineered and that will change the capacity of humans to think.

We natural born humans are on the verge of extinction - but not by being wiped out, but rather by dying off and being replaced by future generations of engineered geniuses with few genetic health issues, longer life spans, and stronger physiques.

We just missed it, people. in a couple of generations, they will look back on us and think us as backward as we think of bronze age or neolithic people.

Answer 2

Oh, you ain't wrong.

Evolution made a significant tactical blunder in inventing us. For the first time it's made a creature with the ability to fry every single DNA strand on the planet. And we're just crazy enough to try.

But mutation+selection is incredibly slow. In the few millennia that we've been around not much serious evolving can get done by the usual 'try it and kill it' process. What we *do* have, as you've hinted, is sexual selection, which is much faster than the survival kind.

In the long term, IF we don't wipe ourselves out in a few more centuries, then we'll be so good at modifying our own genes that the natural process will hardly count. Or maybe we'll just slide back into barbarity again and this civilisation thing will just have been a blip.

CD

Answer 3

I don't see that humans are in any way unique with regard to the broad category of natural selection, or more specifically, sexual selection. If there is a strong enough selective force (e.g. nuclear war), what we find attractive may be less important than what will help us survive. Given enough time and shrinking tradeoffs, we may be on track for some pretty grotesque physical features now through sexual selection (huge breasts, etc (see baboon butts)).


*edit* It's true that we are compensating for a lot of maladaptive traits and building up a genetic load of these "bad" alleles in the population. Hopefully this won't bite us in the a** by drift to fixation. I think it is maybe more likely that we could benefit in the long run from having greater genetic diversity.

Answer 4

Actually, what we're doing today is allowing all the "bad" mutations that would NEVER survive in the wild to live on and even have offspring. We are destroying and poisoning our gene pool with hereditary and degenerative diseases.
Somebody has weak bones? Anemic? Invalid from birth? No problem, medicine will allow them a relatively normal life. They will procreate and carry their illnesses and mutations into the next generation. We're destroying our gene pool with weak and ill individuals. There's hardly any natural selection to speak of. The "ugly" individuals might not get a mate, but physical appearance is secondary to internal degenerations, which are much worse for the health of humanity as whole.
Since it's in the vast majority white people who do that (wealthier, more access to health-care), and the african, south-american, asian... people still live a more primal life stile that includes survival of the healthiest individuals, I can foresee dwindling of the numbers of white population - the weak, sick, impotent individuals will be outbred by the healthier other populations.

Self-awareness in connection with evolution would be a great thing. Unfortunately, it's the so-called "ethics" that destroy our gene pool by allowing every possible degeneration, which would in normal circumstances die out during birth or shortly after, to carry on.

Answer 5

I think we probably are "hampering the free flow of mutation," but I don't know that this is a bad thing. For the species, it might not be so great, but as moral creatures, I think it is good. For example, years ago, a child with a severe bee allergy - or a peanut allergy, or whatever - might have died in childhood, but today, we are able to save that child so s/he can grow up and pass on the weak gene.

As for the way we look at mutations, I think we are better than most creatures. Don't most creatures abandon their young when they have established that it is not "normal"?

Answer 6

First of all, traits such as having six-fingers still exist today. Such traits are rare, but many people can look past such imperfections.
To answer your question, selection based on self-awareness would further evolutionary benefits. Think about it: Many genetic/chromosomal disorders that lead to an early death or retardation can also result in deformities. If someone looks strange because of Klinefelter's or Turner's Syndrome for instance, it would be beneficial to remove those disorders from the gene pool. Looking good indicates good health.
Also, attracting a mate is a huge part of fitness throughout the animal kingdom. Birds, for example, attract mates by singing louder than other birds competing for mates. (As it turns out, loud singing is directly related to the strength of the birds' immune systems.

In short, selecting mates based on their normality is evolutionarily beneficial for all types of animals.

Answer 7

Good point, and I agree. I don't know if it's good or bad, it's only natural.

If somebody would be a 'freak', but caused by something that would actually make sense and be attractive to others, for that person it would be easier to find a mate.

Natural selection by self-awareness doesn't sound like a bad thing to me. Just trying to find a silly example now...ehm.... If there were women with an extra pair of breasts on their back, I can see many guys being attracted to that. That would be a mutation of a 'freak' that we could accept.

Answer 8

Like everything else in natural selection, it will take care of itself. If being self aware causes some members of a species to choose a particular body type that is not conducive to survival, they will die out and be overtaken by those members that either consciously or unconsciously choose survival over preconceived notions of how members of a species should look.

Answer 9

Yes, our self-awareness has affected our evolution. But any other path would be... well, inhuman and cold.
We've put evolution on 'hold', basically, by keeping those of us that would be unlikely to survive in the wild alive. Dozens of disorders are on the rise, because those with them have no problem surviving and reproducing in the world we've built. Back in the middle ages, mental conditions considered commonplace and widely understood would have made someone a complete outcast.

Answer 10

Professor Adjineri is incorrect returned. (he's quite a guy!) you do not might desire to have a scientific clarification for something earlier you need to use it. If it works, you need to use it. The birds did not have a concept of flight, yet they flew. women individuals did not comprehend what made cleansing soap do what it does (many nonetheless do not), yet they have been given their outfits sparkling besides. that's the version between a discovery and an invention. Darwin got here across what the animals and flowers have been doing by using time. He did not invent the phenomenon, he only defined it in a manner that made greater experience than people who wrote earlier, including Lamarck.