Humans stop evolving?

[Boerseun]

If the soul is an organ, or housed in some sort of organ or system in your body that can be analysed, probed, removed and dissected, then, yes - it would fall in the realm of biology.

 

Unfortunately, scientists since ancient times have tried in vain to locate the seat of the soul in the human body. Famous examples include, for instance, the heart. Most likely because ancient biologists (or proto-biologists, more likely) have noticed the tendency of subjects to pass away upon removal (involuntary in 100% of cases - go figure) of the heart. Not even removal, but mere stoppage for any reason was fatal enough for them to come to the reasonable explanation that the soul departs the body upon failure of the heart. Heart stops, subject dies. Therefore, the soul must reside in the heart.

 

Unfortunately for the more romantically inclined, the heart turned out to be nothing more and nothing less than a pretty clever meat pump.

 

And so on and so forth. The latest belief is that the soul resides in the brain, much because of the same line of reasoning. Remove the brain and the subject dies. But through operations where selected parts of the brain is removed, for instance in tumour-removal operations, the patient comes out all fine and dandy. Nowhere has a tumour been removed where the patient came out fine, but soulless.

 

So it actually turns out that the human soul is a human construct, a pure figment of your imagination. Being reinforced upon weekly visits to a peculiar building run by people with a penchant for anachronous organ music and a want for your pocket-change in return for this particular imaginary service.

 

Which kinda removes it from the Biology classroom.

[learnin to learn]

i understand. but could it still reside in the brain. i mean couldnt it just be part of some receptor that makes us think. I mean basically all it is is thinking what is right and what is wrong (unless you get religious and then it is something that is transformed into whatever they want you to think it is) I mean since all it really is is understanding what to do and what not to do then could it still be part of the brain? Does that make any since? I feel like I am just babbling

[Boerseun]

Nope. At best, what gives you the perception of "having a soul" is merely a specific pattern in the tangle of neurons filling your pip. A person brought up without the concept of a "soul", would not feel that he/she has one, nor would the existence thereof be perceptable in any scientific test. And not because of the absence of that particular ingrained pattern, but simply because, in short, it doesn't exist.

[InfiniteNow]

i understand. but could it still reside in the brain. i mean couldnt it just be part of some receptor that makes us think. I mean basically all it is is thinking what is right and what is wrong (unless you get religious and then it is something that is transformed into whatever they want you to think it is) I mean since all it really is is understanding what to do and what not to do then could it still be part of the brain?

It's only "part of the brain" in so far as that seems to be where our thoughts are, and the concept of a soul exists only in thought.

 

It's a bit like the concept of god. For many people it is very real, but it has no existence at any particlar place and time. It is just a thought, a human construct which fills some psychological need, but it doesn't have residence AFAIK in any sort of body region or organ. Sort of like unicorns. They are very real to several little girls, but there is no organ inside of little girls where the unicorns live (except, in thoughts and imagination).

 

Another way to look at it might be to compare it to love. For many people, this is VERY real, but it's not "located" anywhere per se (if you ignore for the moment oxytocin, seratonin, and dopamine). :rolleyes:

[learnin to learn]

being one of religion I cannot completely agree with you, my friend, but I do understand what you are saying.

[Michaelangelica]

The study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and based on DNA samples from around the world, concludes that human evolution has accelerated in the last 40,000 years and particularly in the last 10,000. One reason is that population growth has increased the temporal rate of mutations and selections.

But in the case of humans, the authors note, "Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology … creating new opportunities for adaptation." Such "rapid cultural evolution" has "created vastly more opportunities for further genetic change, not fewer, as new avenues emerged for communication, social interactions, and creativity."

The evolution of evolution. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

[learnin to learn]

culture can lead to evolution?

[Pyrotex]

culture can lead to evolution?

Whatever, and I mean whatever, in the environment alters the chances of survival-and-reproduction, alters the direction of evolution. [Evolution is ALWAYS going on! The question is, "in what direction?"]

 

Culture changes--POW! Women decide that short men with thick necks are "sexy", thereby improving the chances that short thick-necked guys will reproduce and pass their genes on. Voila! Evolution now favors short thick-necked guys. Until the culture changes again, of course.

 

From my point of view, European culture favors intelligence and lean, exotic features. And so they seem to be getting more of that kind. In America, we tend to favor low IQs, blondes, and guys with thick necks, short tempers and big bibles. And so we seem to be getting more of that kind.

 

Culture can affect evolution. At least in the short term. But culture changes too fast to really produce any long term serious changes, IMHO.

[Michaelangelica]

culture can lead to evolution?

yes strange is it not.

You breed cows and then develop the enzyme necessary to drink their milk.

You grow grass seed and develop the ability to digest gluten.

Weird eh!:hihi:

[Pyrotex]

yes strange is it not.

You breed cows and then develop the enzyme necessary to drink their milk.

You grow grass seed and develop the ability to digest gluten.

Weird eh!:rolleyes:

Whoa! Good call. I like that.

[somebody]

Culture changes--POW! Women decide that short men with thick necks are "sexy", thereby improving the chances that short thick-necked guys will reproduce and pass their genes on. Voila! Evolution now favors short thick-necked guys. Until the culture changes again, of course. :)

 

From my point of view, European culture favors intelligence and lean, exotic features. And so they seem to be getting more of that kind. In America, we tend to favor low IQs, blondes, and guys with thick necks, short tempers and big bibles. And so we seem to be getting more of that kind.

 

You are exactly right from women point of view in terms of selection but what about men? Can't we select? 500lb women think that "short thick-necked guy" is sexy does not mean that the short thick-necked guy will reproduce with her.

 

All i have to say is that we are complicated and to go even further, people in different cultures are even more complicated.

[Pyrotex]

You are exactly right from women point of view in terms of selection but what about men? Can't we select? 500lb women think that "short thick-necked guy" is sexy does not mean that the short thick-necked guy will reproduce with her....

There are a few exceptional cases among men, I will concede. But speaking of American Culture, and the Typical American Dude...

 

...he is very much like a Tuna. The Atlantic Tuna will bite at an empty hook. No actual "bait" is required. Here, it is the Woman who makes the choices as to who, when and where (80% of the time). All the Man has to do is show up. If a woman is dangling a hook, he will snap at it.

 

Oddly enough, in the Animal Kingdom, sexual selection is almost always the prerogative of the Female. Interesting. Hmmm... :)

[Michaelangelica]

From my point of view, European culture favors intelligence and lean, exotic features.

Perhaps but maybe this is just what is being touted by the media as "perfection' or sexy.

Find a spot where you can sit and watch the "passing parade' and see how bog-ugly we all are; what huge personal body shapes and differences there are. It is amazing.

Very few Playboy chicks or Schwarzeneggers who are really the "freaks"

[freeztar]

Perhaps but maybe this is just what is being touted by the media as "perfection' or sexy.

 

And Aussie is cut free?

Find a spot where you can sit and watch the "passing parade' and see how bog-ugly we all are; what huge personal body shapes and differences there are. It is amazing.

Very few Playboy chicks or Schwarzeneggers who are really the "freaks"

 

A freak is as a freak says!

[Michaelangelica]

And Aussie is cut free?

that made a wooshing noise as it went over my head.

 

A freak is as a freak says!

I would be the 'booby prize' in a pub raffle.

The one people give back to re-raffle in the hope that someone else would take 'it' home.

 

Lets talk standard deviations and bell curves etc.

A "freak" is someone who is in either end of the curve. The lowest and highest 2.5%.

I do not mean it to be a derogatory term but can't think of a more appropriate word.

 

Also

European culture favours intelligence

I don't see the girls rushing the geeks; unless they own a Silicon Valley company.:xx:

[freeztar]

that made a wooshing noise as it went over my head.

 

Yeah, re-reading it today, it was a poor choice of words. My bad.

My point was that it is not only a European fixation. Most cultures tend to have the same view as to what makes a good looking person, due to media or whatever.

 

I would be the 'booby prize' in a pub raffle.

The one people give back to re-raffle in the hope that someone else would take 'it' home.

Nah, brains count for something mate. :car:

 

Lets talk standard deviations and bell curves etc.

A "freak" is someone who is in either end of the curve. The lowest and highest 2.5%.

I do not mean it to be a derogatory term but can't think of a more appropriate word.

 

I love the word 'freak'. :eplane:

 

All the freaky people make the beauty of the world B)

[DougF]

Pyrotex

From my point of view' date=' European culture favors intelligence and lean, exotic features. And so they seem to be getting more of that kind. [u']In America, we tend to favor low IQs, blondes,[/u] and guys with thick necks, short tempers and big bibles. And so we seem to be getting more of that kind.

Hay I resemble that remark only I have a Big Belly, :shrug:

 

Pyrotex

But speaking of American Culture' date=' and the Typical American Dude...

...he is very much like a Tuna. The Atlantic Tuna will bite at an empty hook. No actual "bait" is required. Here, it is the Woman who makes the choices as to who, when and where (80% of the time). All the Man has to do is show up. If a woman is dangling a hook, he will snap at it.[/quote']

 

you know thats just not right, you cut me too the quick.

 

yes it's true, the guy just has to be there and if she come up and ...........

By see you latter he's gone. :doh: