Tim_Lou Posted March 11, 2004 Report Share Posted March 11, 2004 according to drawin's theory. evolution is caused by natural selection which adaptable ones survive and reproduce. but in today's society, things change... ppl having bad traits (like some sickness....whatever) will not die off, we have hospital, and they can have a love one and have some children. also, ppl having good trait wont reproduce a lot of offsprings, because we are educated ppl. that means natural selection is stopped? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skater Skunk Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 Well, Lou, I'm no scientist, but I do feel that evolution is more than just good or bad traits. It's more than survival of the fittest. I believe it also has to do with ones surroundings. For instance, some scientists who believe in global warming, feel that the natural body temp of the human being is on the rise. Now that may not sound like much, but that is still evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my-toe-sis Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Evolution is actually caused by genetic variation, mostly through gene duplications and mutations. These mutation rates are fairly consistent and therefore we are still evolving at the molecular level. I do however, believe that some lineages of the human species are evolving tword a weaker more dependant being. I don't think that the rise of the natural human body temperature is a sign of evolution, it's more like our biological systems are trying to adapt to new environmental conditions. We can not change the genetic info. that we pass on to our offspring due to enviornmental conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 If the genes from our somatic cells are mutated, it does not mean the genes in our sex organs mutated. So, how can it be passed on the next gen.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
my-toe-sis Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 correct we cannot pass on somaitc gene mutaiton only mutation that occurs when our DNA is replicating to form gametes (sperm and eggs) Say you were exposed to some toxic substance and you grew a thrid eye. This mutation cannot be passed on to your offspring. This is only a reaction to environmental circumstance. However, if you were exposed to a toxin that caused a mutation in the gene responsible for propper eye development in your sex cells than it would be possible to pass on a "mutated eye" effect to your offspring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 Even if the sex cells were mutated, it still does not necessarily get passed on to the next generation according to Mendel's Laws. Only the dominant allele wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted March 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 i can pass on if the gene is homozygous recessive.(both mutated) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted March 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 what i mean is that there is variation in gene pool. but none of them are favorable. humans do not die because they have bad traits, or survive better when they have good traits. we might still be evolving, but since natural selection is stopped, does it mean that our evolution is random? or?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyphite Posted April 8, 2004 Report Share Posted April 8, 2004 even with the natural variations in the DNA, it would no longer be survival of the fittest. we wouldnt get any new traits we need to survive any better. the same weak traits like genetic diseased are still being passed down from generation to generation. in ancient Rome, babies that were found to have something wrong with them were drowned because they wouldn't be usefull to society. this still allowed for natural selection. now though, that kind of thing is considered highly immoral. if society wants to adapt, maybe we should let the genetically impaired struggle themselves instead of funding charity organizations that help them survive. (sorry for the lack of morality) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 bumpWhere is the more recent thread on this?O well I'll post it in Darwin re-visited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 The difference between humans and other animals is the soul. While other animals select their mates because of their traits, we select our mates because of love. In today's society there is no such thing as survival of the fitest. Those who are too weak to make it on the world can go to doctors who will give them some medicene that makes them better. What humans are known for is their adaptations to different climates and environments. No matter where you go, some one will be living there. Now for my question. Is adaptation to the environment in which you live considered a type of evolution? Also, what do you consider evolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotex Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Sorry, L2L, but survival of the fittest cannot be avoided. The only thing that changes is the definition of "fit".If cattle are being bred for large roasts, then having a large roast makes an individual steer "fit".If men and women are being "selected" for their ability to recognize and return love, then those abilities make the individuals "fit". You cannot, even in principal, avoid biological evolution. All you can do is modify some of the definitions of "fit". And not even ALL of those. WHATEVER reason two humans come together and make a baby... love, lust, opportunity, beer, calculated self-interest, bad habits, extortion, carelessness, curiosity... then THAT is what is being selected for in that instance, and THAT reason is the current definition of "fit" for that couple. Lots of these "random" definitions for "fit" will cancel out in the big picture, when you're looking at thousands or millions of couples in a community, nation, culture, world. But even world-culture cannot cancel out everything. People at the world level, overall, are still being "bred" as a result of their "fitness" for something. It may be physical fitness, beauty, charm, wealth, good doctors or a propensity for being at the right place at the right time. The chief point here is that two humans got together for SOME reason and had a baby. For THAT couple, "fitness" is whatever the heck brought them together. And their baby has a slight statistical improvement in its "fitness"--whatever it is for that particular coupling. This is just the way that sex works in all plants and animals on Earth. Whatever that has DNA and two genders. "Fit" calls into question an "environment" in which to BE fit. Right? Well, our "environment" includes things that monkeys, horses, spanish moss, and dragonflies cannot have: a culture, predicated on intelligence, self-awareness, language and technology. So, in Darwin's statement about survival of the fittest, when you look at humans, you have to redefine "fit" and "environment", that's all. Eclogite 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michaelangelica Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 The difference between humans and other animals is the soul. What's this? How does it work?While other animals select their mates because of their traits, we select our mates because of love.Or money or arranged by parents & Family In today's society there is no such thing as survival of the fitest. Those who are too weak to make it on the world can go to doctors who will give them some medicene that makes them better.We do now, help many who would be formally left to die.We also kill many who are physically, sexually 'fit' -wars, mass murder, concentration camps.terrorist bombings,natural disasters, famine. What humans are known for is their adaptations to different climates and environments. No matter where you go, some one will be living there. Now for my question. Is adaptation to the environment in which you live considered a type of evolution? Also, what do you consider evolution?Where it involves the development of a trait, like better oxygen use in Tibetans, ability to digest lactose (Europeans), malarial resistance in Africans with sickle cell anaemia, AIDS resistance in N. Europeans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 The difference between humans and other animals is the soul.LTL, support your claim. This is the biology forum. The claim you have made must be supported with references to or at least well-reasoned speculation concerning scientific evidence of a biological basis for what you term “the soul”. “Faith based” arguments are not appropriate to this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 sorry let me first specify what exactly a soul is. In many cultures and religions the soul is believed to be the unification of ones identity. For Christians the soul is an utter mystery giving them belief in a supreme being that has given them this "gift". Buddhists believe that the soul never dies that is just recycles through the process of reincarnation. Scientology, which was considered a religion in 1993 by the IRS, is the practice of rediscovering the soul. But still their is the underlying question, what is a soul? What is it's importance? According to religios fanatics the soul allows us to determine right from wrong. It allows us to love and to hate. The characteristics that are not found in other animals. review of The Rediscovery of the Human Soul by L. Ron Hubbardthe human soul - Google Search Yes, I was mistaken many factors in human life can be considered being "survival of the fittest". We still rely on this process, the only part that has been redefined is the exact definition of "fit". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeztar Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 sorry let me first specify what exactly a soul is. In many cultures and religions the soul is believed to be the unification of ones identity. For Christians the soul is an utter mystery giving them belief in a supreme being that has given them this "gift". Buddhists believe that the soul never dies that is just recycles through the process of reincarnation. Scientology, which was considered a religion in 1993 by the IRS, is the practice of rediscovering the soul. But still their is the underlying question, what is a soul? What is it's importance? According to religios fanatics the soul allows us to determine right from wrong. It allows us to love and to hate. The characteristics that are not found in other animals. review of The Rediscovery of the Human Soul by L. Ron Hubbardthe human soul - Google Search Please refrain from speaking off-topic. This forum deals with biological topics. Religious/philosophical topics may be discussed within the Philosophy and Theology forums. Yes, I was mistaken many factors in human life can be considered being "survival of the fittest". We still rely on this process, the only part that has been redefined is the exact definition of "fit". How has "the exact definition of fit" been redefined and how is this relevant? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
learnin to learn Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 LTL, support your claim. This is the biology forum. The claim you have made must be supported with references to or at least well-reasoned speculation concerning scientific evidence of a biological basis for what you term “the soul”. “Faith based” arguments are not appropriate to this forum. Freeztar this is why i refrained to talking about religion in the biology forum. I was not talkin off-topic I was asked to explain what it was and so I did. I was explaining why the soul is an important difference between homo sapiens and other species found on this planet. Is that not related to biology? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.