Are we 'breaking' evolution?

[AbAbber2k]

1. Sort of. When someone is born with a genetic disease and then passes that on primarily due to modern medicine keeping them healthy... yes I'd say so. But to a greater extent, there are many people who have no skills or abilities to speak of that are born into wealthy families and given a free ride. Then they breed and chances are their off-spring will take after them. In nature only the strong survive, no exceptions, even if you're the cub of the biggest baddest lion.

2. No. Unless (as above) you're and idiot born into wealth, chances are you're going to need some kind of skill in order for you to be a consumer. Whether it's fixing computers or welding sheetmetal, these are skills have become necessary for our continued lifestyle.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

Absolutely, positively, we are not.

This wouldnt be the first time life has done something to completely throw what we think of as "natural selection" out the door. There was a time before mitochondria and chloroplasts. Then they symbiotically merged to form what we think of as modern cells. Did that "break" evolution? Absolutely not.

Think about the term "Natural Selection". Specifically - Natural. In other words, of this world. Medicine, consumerism and technology are all technically of this world, created by us, but created from the world.

Youre still thinking of survival in the older sense, as a struggle to survive. For the vast majority of us (in this country at least), it is not even slightly a struggle to *survive*. And thats because of the ingenuity of our own race. This is practically unprecendented in the natural world. And that will necessarily turn the concept of natural selection and evolution on its head.

But if you think of evolution and selection in other senses (Power, money, technological enhancement etc), even in a political and social sense, we are absolutely still evolving.

 

[DrPizza]

I agree that we are changing what's important for survival.
i.e. Having diabetes is no longer a death sentence; it's now more of an inconvenience.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Statement:

1. We keep sick people alive, and these sick people have kids. The kids have many of the same genes as their parents, including those genes that select for disease. Thus, those children are likely to get the same disesases as their parents had. This, to me, seems to perpetuate a weak human genetic code - diseases appear more often, and sick people procreate. Is this good for the human species?
   
2. We also have a consumer culture, one which requires almost no effort on our part in order to get "stuff." Want a big TV? Sit at your desk a couple more hours each day, and your extra wages will get you a bigger TV. Want a nicer car? Fix a few more computers and you'll be able to afford one. There's very little effort involved in acquiring material goods. You certainly don't have to traverse the Silk Road in order to get spices. Thus, weaker, less-motivated people survive with lots of luxury items. In the past, these people would die off due to lack of heat in their homes, or lack of food for sustenance. Now, we're surviving because it's so darn easy to get what you want.

Questions:

• Is medicine breaking evolution?
• Is consumerism breaking evoution?

1. Viruses (virii, idc which) are abnormalities of the genetic code. It's impossible to predict some genetic diseases and thus must live with them Are you advocating irradicating those that aren't genetically perfect? Research Adolf Hitler's goals that he worked to attain ... they eventually resulted in a war that killed many millions of people.

2. Aside from your ambigious argument as to how the people acquire "material goods" from "sitting at your desk a couple more hours each day," (you establish no connection between sitting at the desk and more material goods i.e. a wage of some sort) if anything this further reinforces the concept of social darwinism. It shows that as a society, we have evolved from a period of time when king cotton rained supreme or from a time when physical labor like sustinence farming provided a living by growing enough to eat. This is the culture we live in here in America where anyone can play armchair theologian about any topic that tickles their fancy. Now-a-days, it isn't required of us (some of us) to break our backs every day for some money to feed our families. If a small and meaningless (relative term, really) job can provide enough for one to live off of and also provide the means to buy new items regularly, then who is anyone to condone it. As long as it doesn't harm others in the process, who are we to care how someone makes their bread-and-butter.

Bullet1: I don't see how medicine is breaking evolution because medicine evolves with technology and, through the passage of trial and error, finds cures to ailments that once plagued mankind for billions of years (or thousands, if you're a christian). As scientists find the causes for diseases and genetic disorders (see the mapping of the human genome about 5-8 years ago), medicine comes along to help correct the imbalance. As diseases morph and become accustomed to medication used to cure it, medicine then evolves again into a different process to treat the plague (I'm not familiar with the interaction between disease and medicine in depth thus can't comment as to the steps taken by scientists.)

Bullet2: I don't understand the question.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I agree that we are changing what's important for survival.
i.e. Having diabetes is no longer a death sentence; it's now more of an inconvenience.

And this is absolutely a good thing for the human race. In an evolutionary sense, there is nothing wrong with taking shortcuts to survival. Every species does it in its own way. We use the tools that evolution has provided us, and we use them well. It would be downright silly to denigrate such things just because of an outdated narrow minded view of evolution.

In terms of a specific disease, think of it this way. A genetic mutation or a virus is the known cause of a disease.

Route one to survival - Evolve as a population over time until there is a genetic resistance to the disease. Spread such resistance statisically through sexual reproduction between two individuals.

Route two - Evolve an organ (the brain) that can proactively create solutions to problems of survival, such as diseases. Spread such resistance through communication, using another facility of the very same organ (consciousness/language), aided by other inventions of the very same organ(books, technology, telecommunications, internet, global shipping...I could go on forever).

One solution is passive, and results in the death of individuals (and an individuals goal is to survive and replicate). The other result is proactive, and the solution not only solves the problem of the disease, but it is also indispensible in every other facet of our survival.

I personally prefer the brain to genetic resistance. Thanks, evolution.