Is This What Natural Selection Means?

[athanasius]

:no:

Natural Selection is a scientific theory that attempts to explain the way things are. It says absolutely nothing about the way things should be (or the way the ought to be). The theory of gravity does not suggest that we ought to jump of tall buildings; it merely predicts what the results would be. Likewise the concept of Natural Selection indicates that that those specific genes that are better able to replicate themselves will be selected. It makes no value judgments as to whether these genes ought to survive.

I can see no reason to conclude that we should necessarily “do what nature entails”. There are some cases where we should, and some cases where we shouldn’t. Human beings are capable of making this kind of conscious determination. I think it is a mistake to assume that we can use nature as a moral guide to determine what we should do. And neither can we use a theory that attempt do describe nature to guide our moral actions.

I see no problem with the theory of natural selection!

 

[fantome profane]

I see no problem with the theory of natural selection!

Nor do I. Did I imply otherwise?

 

[logician]

Natural Selection does not work the same for homo sapiens (and some pets) as it has for the rest of life throughout the ages. Genetic defects in humans that would be detrimental to survival in other species can be treated medically, allowing the person to not only survive, but pass on his/her genetic traits. Thus we are developing a species with a fair number of genetic defects that are masked to a great degree by medications/treatment.

It is true that evolution has favored those best suited to their particular environment, as environments change, so can the "victor" in evolution. Large disasters have also play a large role by killing many species, and opening up new niches for a whole new set of creatures to evolve.

 

[Hacker]

Natural Selection from the mighty wiki!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

 

[Valjean]

Wanderer is correct. Normal Natural selection works when certain accidental physical traits help or hinder an individual's reproductive success.
In hominids, though, traits that would be negatively selective in other biological families are compensated for by technology and do not affect reproductive success. Blind, lame, sickly individuals add as much to the human gene pool as the healthy .
In fact, what most would consider the best and the brightest among us have lower birth rates than the lower working classes and welfare recipients.

Hominids, as a species, are not advancing in health, morality or intelligence. These features are declining in our population.

 

[Quiddity]

Natural Selection does not work the same for homo sapiens (and some pets) as it has for the rest of life throughout the ages. Genetic defects in humans that would be detrimental to survival in other species can be treated medically, allowing the person to not only survive, but pass on his/her genetic traits. Thus we are developing a species with a fair number of genetic defects that are masked to a great degree by medications/treatment.

It is true that evolution has favored those best suited to their particular environment, as environments change, so can the "victor" in evolution. Large disasters have also play a large role by killing many species, and opening up new niches for a whole new set of creatures to evolve.

Although it is to be noted that the vast majority of mutations hinder not help evolution.

 

[Rough_ER]

Although it is to be noted that a the vast majority of mutations hinder not help evolution.

It should also be noted then that mutation rate is pretty high for most organisms. (I think it's 1/1000000000 i.e 1 error in every 1,000,000,000 nucleotides replicated for e.coli) Given time, it's inevitable that beneficial ones will arise.

 

[Quiddity]

It should also be noted then that mutation rate is pretty high for most organisms. (I think it's 1/1000000000 i.e 1 error in every 1,000,000,000 nucleotides replicated for e.coli) Given time, it's inevitable that beneficial ones will arise.

The fact you use the word "inevitable" is a clear indication of your bias. But that's ok, I have one too...

Tell me, what are the chances of a beneficial mutation coming about? I'm rusty in my math but isn't it 10 to the 15 power?

That's close to a miracle!

 

[PureX]

Although it is to be noted that the vast majority of mutations hinder not help evolution.

Actually, they only hinder the recipients. They do actually help evolution, itself, by weeding out the negatives. Negative mutations govern and protect the genetic code just as surely as positive mutations advance it. It's the neutral mutations that would appear to be somewhat problematic. Our genetic codes seem to be chock full of apparently useless bits of genetic information. It was not weeded out for creating a negative effect, yet it does not appear to have positively advanced the code, either. However, perhaps it protects the code by it's sheer size, as the important bits can be so well hidden within it.

 

[Ozzie]

Does the following make any sense:

1) We should do what nature entails.

2) Natural selection entails the survival of the fittest.

Therefore, we should leave the least fit among us to survive as best they can while putting our resources into helping only the fittest among us to live.

Is this a fair assessment of what natural selection implies or entails? Why or why not?

No. Fitness is happenstance not a moral imperative. Incidentally, this line of reasoning was used in the recent Epicurus thread to justify the notion of free will in men, and an argument for an omnipotent and omnibenovolent God.

 

[Halcyon]

Neutral mutations are the most common form of mutation. Also, a negative or positive label to a mutation is obviously changable upon circumstance - sickle cell anaemia being the best example.

Our genetic codes seem to be chock full of apparently useless bits of genetic information. It was not weeded out for creating a negative effect, yet it does not appear to have positively advanced the code, either. However, perhaps it protects the code by it's sheer size, as the important bits can be so well hidden within it.

The junk DNA has lots of uses, from allowing for differencial transcription to harbouring developing genes. And yes, it may also have a packaging role as you suggest.
Most people seem to be under the impression that "junk" DNA is pointless and without use, whereas in reality the vast bult of junk DNA is there for a good reason (although the reason itself may not be 'good' - retroviruses for example).

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, they only hinder the recipients. They do actually help evolution, itself, by weeding out the negatives. Negative mutations govern and protect the genetic code just as surely as positive mutations advance it. It's the neutral mutations that would appear to be somewhat problematic. Our genetic codes seem to be chock full of apparently useless bits of genetic information. It was not weeded out for creating a negative effect, yet it does not appear to have positively advanced the code, either. However, perhaps it protects the code by it's sheer size, as the important bits can be so well hidden within it.

Ah, that's a good point.

 

[PureX]

Neutral mutations are the most common form of mutation. Also, a negative or positive label to a mutation is obviously changable upon circumstance - sickle cell anaemia being the best example.


The junk DNA has lots of uses, from allowing for differencial transcription to harbouring developing genes. And yes, it may also have a packaging role as you suggest.
Most people seem to be under the impression that "junk" DNA is pointless and without use, whereas in reality the vast bult of junk DNA is there for a good reason (although the reason itself may not be 'good' - retroviruses for example).

Very reasonable observations, thank you.

 

[logician]

One trait of homo sapiens that has changed significantly in the last century or so is size, homo sapiens is MUCH larger on the average than it was a century ago, mostly due to better nutrition.

 

[Rough_ER]

The fact you use the word "inevitable" is a clear indication of your bias. But that's ok, I have one too...

Tell me, what are the chances of a beneficial mutation coming about? I'm rusty in my math but isn't it 10 to the 15 power?

That's close to a miracle!

These two paragraphs contradict each other.

The fact that there is a probability of a beneficial mutation occurring indicates that it is "inevitable", given enough time.

(Please correct me if I read your post wrongly or something!)

 

[Quiddity]

These two paragraphs contradict each other.

The fact that there is a probability of a beneficial mutation occurring indicates that it is "inevitable", given enough time.

(Please correct me if I read your post wrongly or something!)

You missed my point...nvm.

 

[jmaster78]

amazing! discussing natural selection on the RF!where do the dinosaurs fit in? tee hee only joking.

 

[painted wolf]

Eugenics is obviously not "natural" selection, but state ideology.
Naturally the state/medical profession provides some direction, people who carry certen genetic markers are told about the risks to having children with others who carry the same recessive gene.

As Halcyon pointed out most mutations are neutral... niether good nor bad, just minor transcription errors. "bad" and "good" mutations are less common.

and as pointed out a diverce population is better for long term genetic survival.

wa:do