4 ms·

It's really not a new stage of evolution per se. The switch from random variations being selected through breeding, to deliberate enhancement takes us from "evo

• joecode 17y ago
  Right now, yes. But throw in some resource constraints and random violence, and then you've got competition among the "intelligently designed" progeny. Then you're back in evolutionary territory. It's just an evolution that is more conscious of itself.
• thwarted 17y ago
  The eventual ability to use a brain to reason about and change your own species's genes isn't evolutionarily selected for? The brain and human intelligence itself doesn't exist outside of evolution. If it turns out that humans being smart enough to modify their own genes doesn't work out, doesn't produce viable offspring, and ultimately loses out to undirected selection, would we say that that's a failing of our capabilities or that evolution didn't select for human control of their own gene selection? Does the answer to this question change over different time scales or if our evolution was to be studied by other intelligent species? It ceases to be undirected natural selection, but continues to be evolution. "Intelligent design" assumes an intelligence outside and other than humans. This is part of the "playing God" argument against research in this area. So while I agree that the term "intelligent design" may be more appropriate, that doesn't preclude it from still being "evolution" over the long term (which is largely what evolution is focused on). I'd also rather not have the terms get mixed up; calling this "intelligent design" serves to confuse the ongoing religion vs science argument/debate that is holding back innovation and laws in this area.
  • pmichaud 17y ago
    How about "human engineering" instead of intelligent design?
  • dandelany 17y ago
    Exactly. By "evolution," Hawking doesn't mean "the biological process by which randomly generated, heritable traits that foster survival are passed on," he means "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
  • Retric 17y ago
    The human brain already does some selection based on genetic traits. And not just simple heath/fit = good DNA, but it also evaluates your immune system. Apparently people look for other people whose smell suggests that they have an "apposing" immune system so their children will have a wider range of immunity.
• jherdman 17y ago
  Just because I'm a programmer doesn't mean my progeny automatically are. Nothing I learn is passed on through my genes. Hawking and yourself aren't describing evolution, you're describing learning and education.
  • pmichaud 17y ago
    No, you're missing the point. Hawking is saying that we're reaching the point where we actually can make modifications to our physical bodies both pre- and post-natally. I could see why you might be confused if you just read the first couple paragraphs of the article though.
    • anamax 17y ago
      Pre-natal we can apply selection, changing the initial population. However, the effect of that on survival is complicated. Post-natal changes aren't inheritable. They can merely be applied to subsequent generations, which is not really evolution. These changes may affect survival, which can have a second order effect on genotype, but that's tricky and subtle. (If a culture cuts off foreskins for thousands of generations, will boys evolve to not have them at birth? By cutting them off, the population gets no benefit from having them, but there's no cost to being born with them.)
    • jherdman 17y ago
      I did, in fact, read the entire article. Hawking says: """In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, "an external transmission phase," where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. "But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage," Hawking says, "has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.""" See? He's not talking about evolution. He's trying to redefine a biological concept in terms of something much more. What he's describing is learning, and specialization of behaviour through learning.
• sp332 17y ago
  Evolution is not the same as natural selection. The switch is from natural selection to design, they are both methods of evolution.