4 ms·

It's like squeezing a balloon. We haven't alleviated the pressure of evolution, we've only shifted it. While science and medicine have ameliorated many of our b

It's like squeezing a balloon. We haven't alleviated the pressure of evolution, we've only shifted it. While science and medicine have ameliorated many of our biological weaknesses -- genetic or sporadic -- other cues have taken there place. What is (temporally) being selected for is a more interesting question.

philwelch 14y ago
Evolution can be increased or decreased easily. Natural selection is a result of death. More death means more natural selection, and less death means less natural selection. We've reduced death tremendously, and hence reduced natural selection. Sexual selection is quite a different animal, but we can't take as a given that sexual selection increases as natural selection decreases. It might; I just don't know any reason that it would. And there are reasons that even sexual selection would diminish--for various reasons, I don't think anyone today could have nearly as many children as Genghis Khan did.
- pathdependent 14y ago
  My original claim was that it was fantastical to suggest evolution was arrested, not slowed; however, your point is more nuanced and interesting than mine. With this in mind, I'd refine my original statement. I find the idea of a stable rate of evolution curious. With respect to your argument, we are in agreement: there is reason to suspect that evolution as a reaper has become more tolerant; on the flip side, I'd argue that genetic diversity is increasing, as a consequence of with an unbridled phase of expansion. In this sea of diversity, the genetic victor exists, to be revealed during some future event of punctuated equilibria.
- lrhot9 14y ago
  No, natural selection is a result of differences in reproductive success. We've lowered death, but does that somehow ensue that everyone has exactly the same number of surviving grandchildren? 30% of german women never reproduce. Among female graduates, the figure is 40%. From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    The point remains that for natural selection to stay the same, decreases in death, sterility, etc. have to be balanced by increases in some other selective force, and you'd have to somehow argue that there was such an increase. Moreover, it has to be something inheritable, not acquired.
  - wladimir 14y ago
    From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived There is the distinct possibility that they affected the chance for others to reproduce or survive. So you are right about their individual evolution, but they were likely part of group or species evolution. In bees and other hive insects this effect is most pronounced, as there are only only a few individuals in the hive that can reproduce. But with only them, the hive would die out, so the rest is useful from an evolutionary standpoint.

philwelch 14y ago

Evolution can be increased or decreased easily. Natural selection is a result of death. More death means more natural selection, and less death means less natural selection. We've reduced death tremendously, and hence reduced natural selection. Sexual selection is quite a different animal, but we can't take as a given that sexual selection increases as natural selection decreases. It might; I just don't know any reason that it would. And there are reasons that even sexual selection would diminish--for various reasons, I don't think anyone today could have nearly as many children as Genghis Khan did.

pathdependent 14y ago
My original claim was that it was fantastical to suggest evolution was arrested, not slowed; however, your point is more nuanced and interesting than mine. With this in mind, I'd refine my original statement. I find the idea of a stable rate of evolution curious. With respect to your argument, we are in agreement: there is reason to suspect that evolution as a reaper has become more tolerant; on the flip side, I'd argue that genetic diversity is increasing, as a consequence of with an unbridled phase of expansion. In this sea of diversity, the genetic victor exists, to be revealed during some future event of punctuated equilibria.
lrhot9 14y ago
No, natural selection is a result of differences in reproductive success. We've lowered death, but does that somehow ensue that everyone has exactly the same number of surviving grandchildren? 30% of german women never reproduce. Among female graduates, the figure is 40%. From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived.
- philwelch 14y ago
  The point remains that for natural selection to stay the same, decreases in death, sterility, etc. have to be balanced by increases in some other selective force, and you'd have to somehow argue that there was such an increase. Moreover, it has to be something inheritable, not acquired.
- wladimir 14y ago
  From an evolutionary standpoint, they might as well never have lived There is the distinct possibility that they affected the chance for others to reproduce or survive. So you are right about their individual evolution, but they were likely part of group or species evolution. In bees and other hive insects this effect is most pronounced, as there are only only a few individuals in the hive that can reproduce. But with only them, the hive would die out, so the rest is useful from an evolutionary standpoint.