Are we still evolving?

[paulm50]

Watch the program please, before replying.

It proves how we can't stop evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

In Britain we have a National Health Service, and its job is to do its level best to bring Evolution to a halt.

 

[paulm50]

In Britain we have a National Health Service, and its job is to do its level best to bring Evolution to a halt.

They illustrated how modern living is changing us, and how extreme environments are changing the people who live there.

 

[Loudmouth]

In Britain we have a National Health Service, and its job is to do its level best to bring Evolution to a halt.

Ignoring the sarcasm for a moment . . .

That would only be possible if NHS was able to stop extremely lethal genetic diseases that kill an embryo before it is even a month old.

 

[RC1970]

After watching the news each evening, I think an argument could be made that we are devolving.

 

[Loudmouth]

After watching the news each evening, I think an argument could be made that we are devolving.

Biologically, there is no such thing as devolving since evolution has no set goal that it is trying to reach.

If you mean that we are getting worse as a society, then you should read a bit about history. There hasn't been a better time to live than now for such a large portion of the population.

 

[Zosimus]

It was a stupid video.

Since evolution is nothing more than a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation, it would be pretty hard to stop that. Nothing short of human cloning would even have a chance.

However, no, we are not evolving. Evolution is a change in genetic material that transcends the life of one individual. As such, no one can say that I am evolving nor any other person, living or dead.

Nor should you say that extreme environments are changing us unless, of course, you believe in Lamarckian evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, no, we are not evolving. Evolution is a change in genetic material that transcends the life of one individual. As such, no one can say that I am evolving nor any other person, living or dead.

Notice the change in pronoun. First, you say that WE are not evolving. You then change it to I am not evolving. Those are not the same things.

We, as a species going forward, can't stop evolving. Just as one example, mutations that cause spontaneous abortions before the 3rd month are still being selected against and leaving signals of negative selection in our collective genomes. There is nothing that we can do to stop this.

Also, we lack the technology to remove the 35 to 50 mutations that everyone is born with. There is nothing to stop the accumulation of these mutations with each generation.

In case you forgot, our genomes are passed on to future generations.

 

[Zosimus]

Notice the change in pronoun. First, you say that WE are not evolving. You then change it to I am not evolving. Those are not the same things.

We, as a species going forward, can't stop evolving. Just as one example, mutations that cause spontaneous abortions before the 3rd month are still being selected against and leaving signals of negative selection in our collective genomes. There is nothing that we can do to stop this.

Also, we lack the technology to remove the 35 to 50 mutations that everyone is born with. There is nothing to stop the accumulation of these mutations with each generation.

In case you forgot, our genomes are passed on to future generations.

I am not evolving. You are not evolving. Therefore, we are not evolving.

Note the change in pronouns.

Perhaps what the person in question meant to ask was whether the human species was continuing to evolve. Again, this depends entirely on what is meant both by species and by evolve.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not evolving. You are not evolving. Therefore, we are not evolving.

If I can only lift 200 lbs, and you can only lift 200 lbs, does that mean that we, together, could not lift over 200 lbs?

We do not last beyond a single generation. Our species does. Therefore, our species can do things that we can not do as a single person.

Perhaps what the person in question meant to ask was whether the human species was continuing to evolve. Again, this depends entirely on what is meant both by species and by evolve.

Species would be an interbreeding population of organisms. Evolution would be change in those populations over time and over generations.

Those are the standard meanings of those words.

 

[paulm50]

It was a stupid video.

Since evolution is nothing more than a change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation, it would be pretty hard to stop that. Nothing short of human cloning would even have a chance.

However, no, we are not evolving. Evolution is a change in genetic material that transcends the life of one individual. As such, no one can say that I am evolving nor any other person, living or dead.

Nor should you say that extreme environments are changing us unless, of course, you believe in Lamarckian evolution.

The video proves otherwise. Worms, rats, mice, germs, humans all evolving. You, us, personally aren't evolving. We will pass your genes onto our children, who will pass it on to theirs, multiply it by 10,000 and who knows where humans will be. Take away modern support systems and evolution happens faster. Go back millions of years and watch the slow changes. http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

We are a tiny step in the evolution journey, and we are not evolving. Our species is.

Evolution is happening, it can't be denied. Maybe a god kicked off the big bang, started the first cell, gave an ape a bigger, better brain. We're on the verge of being able to do that now. We can manipulate evolution and have done unknowingly.

Evolution isn't a theory when scientists can create designer babies of many species, when our pets and food are designed. It's a profession.

 

[Zosimus]

If I can only lift 200 lbs, and you can only lift 200 lbs, does that mean that we, together, could not lift over 200 lbs?

Relevance? None. Or are you saying that if I believe in gravity, and you believe in gravity, that together we can believe in two gravities? Not everything can be summed you know.

We do not last beyond a single generation. Our species does. Therefore, our species can do things that we can not do as a single person.

Species do not do things. Species is an abstract and poorly defined concept that has no relation to the real world.

Species would be an interbreeding population of organisms. Evolution would be change in those populations over time and over generations.

You know that this is wrong. In reality, there are dozens of species concepts. Chihuahuas do not breed with St. Bernards, yet they are defined as the same species. Horses and donkeys interbreed, but they are defined as different species.

Evolution is not a change in populations over time. Do you think that if the population migrates to a different place that it has evolved?

You are very careless with your words.

 

[Zosimus]

The video proves otherwise.

Videos don't prove things. They may educate, inform, or persuade, but they do not prove.

We will pass your genes onto our children, who will pass it on to theirs, multiply it by 10,000 and who knows where humans will be.

Do you read what you type before you post it? You said, "We " (some group of people including you) "will pass your genes " (aka mine) "onto our children." What in the world are you talking about? Are you proposing that you and I interbreed? Or do you propose that you and other scientists will splice my genes into the genetic material of your children?
"...who will pass it on to theirs..."
What is it? Is "my genes" an it?

I cannot understand you at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Relevance? None.

Relevance? Everything.

Are you unaware that interactions between two objects can produce phenomena that those objects can not produce on their own? So why would you say that your personal inability to evolve would mean that an entire population of humans over several generations could not evolve?

Or are you saying that if I believe in gravity, and you believe in gravity, that together we can believe in two gravities? Not everything can be summed you know.

Some things can be summed, which refutes your absolutist claim.

Species do not do things.

Yes they do. They interbreed and have offspring. They die. They use up natural resources. These are the things that cause evolution to happen.

Species is an abstract and poorly defined concept that has no relation to the real world.

For sexual species, it is objectively defined as a group that interbreeds and shares genes. It is defined by gene flow.

Chihuahuas do not breed with St. Bernards, yet they are defined as the same species.

The gene flow allowed by intermediate breeds prevents them from being considered fully separate species. However, for genetic studies and the study of evolution, we could show how Chihuahuas and St. Bernards are diverging over time due to evolution.

It seems that you are getting hung up on labels to the point that you are refusing to look at reality.

Horses and donkeys interbreed, but they are defined as different species.

Again, it is about gene flow. There is no gene flow between the horse and donkey populations because of hybrid sterility. There is no means by which a mutation in the horse population can make it into the donkey population. This causes divergence of the horse and donkey genomes over time due to evolution.

Evolution is not a change in populations over time. Do you think that if the population migrates to a different place that it has evolved?

Change refers to DNA sequences and morphology.

 

[Zosimus]

Are you unaware that interactions between two objects can produce phenomena that those objects can not produce on their own? So why would you say that your personal inability to evolve would mean that an entire population of humans over several generations could not evolve?

I am not evolving. You are not evolving. Therefore, we are not evolving. Questions of how much weight you could lift are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Stick to the topic.

Yes they do. They interbreed and have offspring. They die. They use up natural resources. These are the things that cause evolution to happen.

No, species do not do these things. Individual animals do them.

For sexual species, it is objectively defined as a group that interbreeds and shares genes. It is defined by gene flow.

Even if that were true, that would mean that no fossil can be demonstrated to be the same species as any other fossil.

The gene flow allowed by intermediate breeds prevents them from being considered fully separate species. However, for genetic studies and the study of evolution, we could show how Chihuahuas and St. Bernards are diverging over time due to evolution.

Irrelevant.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not evolving. You are not evolving. Therefore, we are not evolving.

Already refuted this argument.

Species can do what individuals can not, therefore species can evolve.

No, species do not do these things. Individual animals do them.

No, they don't. For sexual species, an individual does not produce offspring. An individual does not compete for limited resources. An individual does not span several generations.

Even if that were true, that would mean that no fossil can be demonstrated to be the same species as any other fossil.

That is correct. What species a fossil belongs to is a rather arbitrary and meaningless line as we move through time. All that we can do is use multivariate techniques to see if there is a significant morphological difference between one group of fossils and another.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant. You avoid it because it destroys your argument.

 

[Zosimus]

Already refuted this argument.

No, you didn't.

Species can do what individuals can not, therefore species can evolve.

No, species is an abstract concept with no proven relation to the real world.

An individual does not compete for limited resources.

Yes, it does.

Completely relevant. You avoid it because it destroys your argument.

No, my argument is that animals that cannot interbreed are still classified as the same species. Whether genetic divergence happens is irrelevant.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you didn't.

Yes, I did.

No, species is an abstract concept with no proven relation to the real world.

Already proved otherwise. We can objectively define a species by gene flow for sexually reproducing species.

It appears that your arguments require you to ignore everything people say.

Yes, it does.

If there was only a single organism, who would it compete with?

No, my argument is that animals that cannot interbreed are still classified as the same species. Whether genetic divergence happens is irrelevant.

Again, it is defined by gene flow. Whether genetic divergence happens is directly relevant to the question of whether evolution happens BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS DIVERGENCE OVER TIME.

Do you know what the definition of relevant is?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I did.



Already proved otherwise. We can objectively define a species by gene flow for sexually reproducing species.

It appears that your arguments require you to ignore everything people say.



If there was only a single organism, who would it compete with?



Again, it is defined by gene flow. Whether genetic divergence happens is directly relevant to the question of whether evolution happens BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS DIVERGENCE OVER TIME.

Do you know what the definition of relevant is?

Saying something is irrelevant he doesn't like, is just his primitive defense mechanism in action.

 

[Zosimus]

Yes, I did.

No, you didn't.

Already proved otherwise. We can objectively define a species by gene flow for sexually reproducing species.

Based on arbitrary limits that have no relation to real world events? Impressive.

If there was only a single organism, who would it compete with?

Against other organisms of other species.

Again, it is defined by gene flow. Whether genetic divergence happens is directly relevant to the question of whether evolution happens BECAUSE EVOLUTION IS DIVERGENCE OVER TIME.

Again, this is irrelevant. Just because you picked some number out of your hat and consistently apply it does not mean that it bears any proven relation to the real world.

Do you know what the definition of relevant is?

Relevant (adj.): closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.